§

Ex Parte Kopperschmidt

11128088 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013)
Ex Parte Kopperschmidt

11 Cited authorities

  1. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International

    316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 239 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the term "vivid color appearance" not indefinite when the specification presented a formula for calculating the differential effect for a number of examples, which determined whether or not they had a "vivid colored appearance"

  2. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.

    833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 344 times
    Holding that a "device that does not satisfy [a claim limitation] at least equivalently does not function in substantially the same way as the claimed invention," and thus cannot infringe under the doctrine of equivalents

  3. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc.

    324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 219 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a limitation required by the proper construction of claim terms would be vitiated if the jury's finding of infringement by equivalents were upheld

  4. Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude Medical

    296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 187 times
    Holding that it is improper to limit a function beyond what is stated in the claim

  5. Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Serv., Inc.

    290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 180 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding district court's construction of a term based on purpose of the invention and disputed term's use within the specification.

  6. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,329 times   1038 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,105 times   470 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 184 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"

  11. 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