§

Ex Parte Staten et al

12986355 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)
Ex Parte Staten et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,545 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. K-2 Corporation v. Salomon S.A

    191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 275 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "said non-rigid shoe portion being permanently affixed to said base portion at least at said toe area and said heel area for substantially preventing movement therebetween at least in a horizontal plane" was a claim limitation that required the attachment to prevent the bootie from sliding around on top of the base and that the limitation spoke to the structural requirements of the attachment

  3. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc.

    206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 220 times
    Holding that preamble phrase "control apparatus" does not limit claim scope when it merely gives a descriptive name to the claimed invention

  4. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 86 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  5. Gechter v. Davidson

    116 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding arbitrary the Board's finding of anticipation because of inadequate explanation on how the reference disclosed claim elements, vacating, and remanding

  6. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  7. In re Cortright

    165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the patent's written description must "illuminate a credible utility" to meet the enablement requirement

  8. In re Stepan Co.

    660 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 14 times

    No. 2010–1261.Reexamination Nos. 90/006,824 90/007,619. 2011-10-5 In re STEPAN COMPANY. Thomas J. Wimbiscus, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were George Wheeler, and Dennis H. Jaskoviak, Jr. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were, Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Janet A. Gongola, Associate Solicitor. PROST Thomas J. Wimbiscus

  9. Hyatt v. Dudas

    551 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the final judgment rule applies in section 145 cases

  10. Application of Mott

    539 F.2d 1291 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 76-568. August 12, 1976. John H. Dodge, II, Pravel Wilson, Charles W. Hanor, Houston, Tex., attorneys of record, for appellant, James B. Gambrell, New York City, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, John W. DeWhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent

  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 41.37 - 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

  16. 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)