§

Ex Parte Pilkington

13899059 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2018)
Ex Parte Pilkington

9 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 622 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  2. Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

    800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 168 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding "compliance mechanism" nested in a method claim was a means-plus function term

  3. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. At & T Mobility LLC

    785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 55 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment of indefiniteness, which was based on numerous detailed findings of fact by the district court, including evaluating expert testimony, when the indefiniteness inquiry was intertwined with claim construction

  4. Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.

    830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 45 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding "symbol generator" analogous to "means for generating symbols" on similar grounds

  5. Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy

    742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting we do not "sit to review what the Commission has not decided"

  6. 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

  7. 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."

  8. 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"

  9. 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