§

Ex Parte Chan et al

11428607 (B.P.A.I. May. 1, 2012)
Ex Parte Chan et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,819 times   167 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"

  2. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  3. Gechter v. Davidson

    116 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding arbitrary the Board's finding of anticipation because of inadequate explanation on how the reference disclosed claim elements, vacating, and remanding

  4. In re Hyatt

    211 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 36 times
    Rejecting Hyatt's claim that the Board failed to analyze the claims on an element-by-element and claim-by-claim basis and affirming the Board's anticipation determination

  5. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  6. In re Fujimura

    130 F. App'x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

    No. 04-1244, Serial No. 08/395,638. Decided: March 31, 2005. Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Setsuo Fujimura, Masato Sagawa, Yukata Matsuura, Hitoshi Yamamoto, and Norio Togawa (collectively, the "appellants") seek review of a decision from the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Appeal No. 2003-2030. The Board upheld a patent examiner's rejection on the basis of obviousness-type double patenting. We affirm

  7. In re Fox

    471 F.2d 1405 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming rejection where examiner took “[o]fficial notice of the existence in the art of such recording and re-recording steps” for copying the contents of one audio tape onto another

  8. Application of Kunzmann

    326 F.2d 424 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7038. January 23, 1964. George H. Spencer, Harvey Kaye, Spencer Kaye, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. SMITH, Judge. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Patent Office Board of Appeals was correct in holding that claims 8, 9, 14-18 and 20-23 of appellant's application were directed to a structure

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 times   478 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."

  10. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)