§

Voice Tech Corporation

IPR2020-01018 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2021)
Voice Tech Corporation

36 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,890 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  3. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.

    299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,457 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

  4. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

    755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 473 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms should be given plain and ordinary meaning unless patentee acts as own lexicographer or disavows claim scope in specification or prosecution history

  5. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 383 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  6. Wyers v. Master Lock Co.

    616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 208 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success exist when "it is simply a matter of common sense" to combine known elements of the prior art to solve a known problem

  7. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 150 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  8. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.

    842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 117 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding claimed menu interface abstract because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems"

  9. InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGo Communications, Inc.

    751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 107 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert's testimony could not support a finding of obviousness where "testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to [the expert's] belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so"

  10. Winner Intern. Royalty Corp. v. Wang

    202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that "the admission of live testimony on all matters before the Board in a section 146 action, as in this case, makes a factfinder of the district court and requires a de novo trial"

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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."

  12. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,973 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  13. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 554 times   901 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  14. 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"

  15. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 162 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  16. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 131 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  17. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  18. Section 42.23 - Oppositions, replies, and sur-replies

    37 C.F.R. § 42.23   Cited 43 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Taking testimony

  19. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  20. Section 42.53 - Taking testimony

    37 C.F.R. § 42.53   Cited 4 times   21 Legal Analyses

    (a)Form. Uncompelled direct testimony must be submitted in the form of an affidavit. All other testimony, including testimony compelled under 35 U.S.C. 24 , must be in the form of a deposition transcript. Parties may agree to video-recorded testimony, but may not submit such testimony without prior authorization of the Board. In addition, the Board may authorize or require live or video-recorded testimony. (b)Time and location. (1) Uncompelled direct testimony may be taken at any time to support

  21. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   Cited 1 times   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,