§

Ex Parte Chen et al

12262900 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)
Ex Parte Chen et al

18 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,813 times   166 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. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.

    138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,576 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction was purely a matter of law and therefore subject to de novo review

  3. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

    256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 669 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

  4. In re Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 518 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  5. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  6. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  7. Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

    216 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that a district court erred in using the inventor's deposition testimony to invalidate patent claims under § 112, ¶ 2

  8. In re Caveney

    761 F.2d 671 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 112 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 102(b), invention must be "on sale" in the United States

  9. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  10. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  11. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  12. 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)

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.130 - Affidavit or declaration of attribution or prior public disclosure under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

    37 C.F.R. § 1.130   Cited 4 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Affidavit or declaration of attribution. When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. (b)Affidavit or declaration of prior public disclosure. When any claim