§

Ex Parte Garcia Cadarso et al

10911393 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2013)
Ex Parte Garcia Cadarso et al

29 Cited authorities

  1. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 971 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  2. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 421 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  3. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 520 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  4. B. Braun Medical v. Abbott Laboratories

    124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 511 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's pre- Markman failure to instruct the jury on the construction of a means-plus-function limitation was harmless because the jury adopted the correct construction

  5. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 661 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  6. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 326 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

  7. Micro Chemical v. Great Plains Chemical

    194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 405 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court erroneously overlooked alternative embodiments of the invention when it concluded that the means-plus function clause could only cover the structure of the preferred embodiment

  8. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.

    318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 321 times
    Holding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims

  9. Technology v. Videotek

    545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 247 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry

  10. Lighting World v. Birchwood Lighting

    382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 267 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,350 times   1045 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 6,124 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing