12 Cited authorities
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 278 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
In re Translogic Technology
504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 44 times 2 Legal AnalysesRecognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., Llc.
778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 11 times 21 Legal AnalysesNo. 2014–1301. 2015-02-4 In re CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. Timothy M. Salmon, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, of Basking Ridge, NJ, argued for appellant. Of counsel on the brief was John R. Kasha, Kasha Law LLC, of North Potomac, MD. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. With him on the brief were Scott C. Weidenfeller and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitors. DYK Affirmed. Newman, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion
Application of Ruskin
347 F.2d 843 (C.C.P.A. 1965) Cited 1 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 7413. July 1, 1965. Ralph L. Chappell, John F. Smith, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of apparatus claims 8 and 9 in appellant's application, serial No. 738,573, filed May 28, 1958 for "Process for
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,056 times 449 Legal AnalysesHolding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,938 times 949 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 182 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
Section 318 - Decision of the Board
35 U.S.C. § 318 Cited 159 times 137 Legal AnalysesGoverning the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)
Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency
37 C.F.R. § 42.100 Cited 188 times 75 Legal AnalysesProviding that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"
Section 42.104 - Content of petition
37 C.F.R. § 42.104 Cited 27 times 52 Legal AnalysesDescribing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"
Section 90.2 - Notice; service
37 C.F.R. § 90.2 2 Legal Analyses(a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,