§

Ex Parte Daamen et al

13471609 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)
Ex Parte Daamen et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC

    703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 188 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the preamble phrase "rotary cutter deck" was a limitation where the specification referred to "the present invention" as "a rotary cutter deck"

  2. Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.

    66 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 306 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a position taken to establish patentability in view of prior art is a "substantive position on the technology for which a patent is sought, and will generally generate an estoppel," while arguments made in order to more particularly point out the applicant's invention are "not presumed to raise an estoppel"

  3. Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc.

    264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 188 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding measurements excluded from the scope of the claim during prosecution could not infringe the limitation "substantially uniform"

  4. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  5. In re King

    801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure

  6. In re Wilder

    429 F.2d 447 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8194. August 13, 1970. Ellsworth H. Mosher, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellant; Stevens, Davis, Miller Mosher, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and JONES, Senior Judge, United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. Wilder has appealed from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which

  7. Application of Miller

    441 F.2d 689 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8444. May 13, 1971. Jay P. Friedenson, Morristown, N.J., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FORD, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-18 in appellant's

  8. Application of Wilson

    424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the court cannot ignore the specific language in a claim

  9. Application of Steele

    305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  10. Glass v. Betsey

    3 U.S. 6 (1794)   Cited 3 times

    FEBRUARY TERM, 1794. For the Appellants, the case was briefly opened, upon the following principles. The question is of great importance; and extends to the whole judicial authority of the United States; for, if the admiralty has no jurisdiction, there can be no jurisdiction in any common law court. Nor is it material to distinguish the ownership of the vessel and cargo; since strangers, or aliens, in amity, are entitled equally with Americans to have their property protected by the laws. Vatt. B

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,343 times   1041 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,120 times   473 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,983 times   993 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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 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

  16. 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

  17. 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)