§

Taghizadeh, Rouzbeh R.

15241585 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2019)
Taghizadeh, Rouzbeh R.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 776 times   146 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

  2. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

    569 U.S. 576 (2013)   Cited 450 times   147 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

  3. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

    881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 510 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding material dispute of fact regarding inventiveness created by improved redundancy, efficiency, computer functionality, and costs of operating a network or computer systems network costs that are captured by claim elements precludes summary judgment

  4. Diamond v. Chakrabarty

    447 U.S. 303 (1980)   Cited 402 times   84 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims patent-eligible where "the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility"

  5. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 337 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim invalid as anticipated when it claimed compounds in Markush form and a prior art reference disclosed one of the claimed compounds

  6. Rowe v. Dror

    112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 224 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "balloon angioplasty catheter" in preamble to claim was structural limitation

  7. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 130 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify cff-DNA in a sample before detecting it

  8. In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.

    911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2017-2465 12-28-2018 IN RE: MARCO GULDENAAR HOLDING B.V., Appellant Christian D. Ehret, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Nathan J. Prepelka. Mary L. Kelly, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Coke Morgan Stewart, Philip J. Warrick. Chen, Circuit Judge. Christian D. Ehret, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented

  9. In re McDaniel

    293 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 28 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting "the Board is free to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected representative claim" in the absence of a clear statement asserting separate patentability of the claims

  10. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 39 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,945 times   961 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,422 times   2200 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  16. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)

  17. 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