§

Vittorio Bologna et al.

29453426 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019)
Vittorio Bologna et al.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 585 times   76 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. In re Gosteli

    872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]he CCPA's later decisions control because that court always sat en banc”

  3. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

  4. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 23 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  5. In re Fought

    941 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    2019-1127 11-04-2019 IN RE: David FOUGHT, Martin Clanton, Appellants Ryan Matthew Fountain, Mishawaka, IN, argued for appellants. William LaMarca, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Thomas L. Casagrande, Thomas W. Krause, Joseph Matal, Coke Morgan Stewart. Moore, Circuit Judge. Ryan Matthew Fountain, Mishawaka, IN, argued for appellants. William LaMarca, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent

  6. In re Owens

    710 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 9 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that written description must show that "the inventor had possession of the claimed" invention

  7. In re Rasmussen

    650 F.2d 1212 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times
    Concluding that the generic step of "adheringly applying" one layer to an adjacent layer satisfied the written description requirement, because "one skilled in the art who read specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered."

  8. In re Daniels

    144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 21 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 97-1225 May 20, 1998 Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Serial No. 29/020,787) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. S. Michael Bender, S. Michael Bender, P.A., of Gulfport, Florida, argued for appellant. Karen A. Buchanan, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, and Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor. William T. Fryer

  9. In re Berger

    279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to consider the merits of indefiniteness rejections not contested before the Board

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,265 times   1021 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

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 180 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"

  12. 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

  13. 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)

  14. Section 1.113 - Final rejection or action

    37 C.F.R. § 1.113   Cited 12 times   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) On the second or any subsequent examination or consideration by the examiner the rejection or other action may be made final, whereupon applicant's, or for ex parte reexaminations filed under § 1.510 , patent owner's reply is limited to appeal in the case of rejection of any claim (§ 41.31 of this title), or to amendment as specified in § 1.114 or § 1.116 . Petition may be taken to the Director in the case of objections or requirements not involved in the rejection of any claim (§ 1.181 ). Reply

  15. 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