§

Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha et al.

2021001075 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha et al.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Tronzo v. Biomet

    156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 197 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding substantial evidence did not support finding that parent application provided written description of later-claimed genus encompassing any shape where it "tout[ed] the advantages of conical shape," mentioned other shapes only in reciting the prior art, and "specifically distinguishe[d] the prior art as inferior"

  2. Novozymes v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS

    723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 47 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Upholding summary judgment of no written description

  3. In re NTP, Inc.

    654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "priority can be considered and determined during reexamination proceedings," which are governed by similar statutory language

  4. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  5. Hollmer v. Harari

    681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1276. 2012-08-24 Shane C. HOLLMER and Lee E. Cleveland, Appellants, v. Eliyahou HARARI and Sanjay Mehrotra, Appellees. Deanne E. Maynard, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With her on the brief were Alexander J. Hadjis and Kristin L. Yohannan; and Gregory W. Reilly, of San Diego, CA. Of counsel on the brief were Martin C. Fliesler and Joseph P. O'Malley, Fliesler Meyer LLP, of San Francisco, CA. William A. Birdwell, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, of Portland

  6. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  7. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech., LLC

    No. 2016-2260 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 13, 2017)

    2016-2260 06-13-2017 PURDUE PHARMA L.P., Appellant v. RECRO TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Appellee CLIFFORD DAVIDSON, Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC, New York, NY, for appellant. Also represented by OLEG IOSELEVICH, CARY KAPPEL; CHRISTOPHER H. BLASZKOWSKI, RatnerPrestia, King of Prussia, PA; BRIAN P. O'SHAUGHNESSY, Washington, DC. RICHARD KELLY, Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, Alexandria, VA, for appellee. Also represented by KATHERINE DOROTHY CAPPAERT, MARINA IVANOVNA MILLER; PAUL K. LEGAARD, DANIEL

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,412 times   1063 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  9. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 604 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  12. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  13. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  14. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and