§
Ex Parte Liu

16 Cited authorities

  1. South Corp. v. United States

    690 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 263 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Court of Claims opinions as binding precedent

  2. North American Container v. Plastipak Pack

    415 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 117 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that recapture rule applied to reissued claims that had been “enlarged” and were not “materially narrowed in other respects”

  3. Yoon Ja Kim v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

    465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringement of dependent claims, "necessarily follows" a finding of noninfringement of independent claims

  4. In re Clement

    131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Deciding as a matter of law "whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims"

  5. Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc.

    142 F.3d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 49 times
    Finding patentee's repeated arguments regarding the limitations constituted an admission that the limitations were necessary to overcome the prior art and the reissue claims impermissibly recaptured surrendered subject matter

  6. Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc.

    998 F.2d 992 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 32 times
    Finding surrender by way of claim amendments

  7. Ball Corp. v. United States

    729 F.2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 37 times
    Noting that a court may draw inferences from changes in claim scope

  8. Haliczer v. United States

    356 F.2d 541 (Fed. Cir. 1966)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 13-61. February 18, 1966. Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for plaintiff; Donald A. Kaul, Herbert J. Jacobi and Marvin R. Stern, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Louise O'Neil, St. Paul, Minn., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Douglas, for defendant. Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and LARAMORE, DURFEE, DAVIS and COLLINS, Judges. PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] This opinion incorporates, with minor changes and some added discussion, the opinion prepared, at the direction of the

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,333 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,109 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,975 times   988 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  13. 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"

  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

  16. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   28 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)