§

Ex Parte 6,426,916 et al

95001122 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2012)
Ex Parte 6,426,916 et al

5 Cited authorities

  1. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG

    318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 160 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general statement introducing new limitations does not limit scope of claims not amended to include the new limitations

  2. Tehrani v. Hamilton Medical, Inc.

    331 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that the lower court improperly imported a limitation from the specification when it interpreted a claim to describe "automatic measuring" when the claim only stated "measuring"

  3. Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc.

    628 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Treating motions for summary judgment as implicitly requesting relief from the court's case management orders

  4. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by

  5. Section 41.79 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.79   Cited 5 times

    (a) Parties to the appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: (1) The original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a) , (2) The original § 41.77(b) decision under the provisions of § 41.77(b)(2) , (3) The expiration of the time for the owner to take action under § 41.77(b)(2) , or (4) The new decision of the Board under § 41.77(f) . (b) (1) The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked