§

HOLMES V. Gopinath et al. V. Arling

14728905 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2020)
HOLMES V. Gopinath et al. V. Arling

10 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,780 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,168 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 166 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  4. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.

    848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 61 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the Board provided an inadequate analysis to provide meaningful appellate review

  5. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  6. Bilstad v. Wakalopulos

    386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 59 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of "plurality" of the Board of Patent Appeals

  7. Agilent Tech. v. Affymetrix

    567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 48 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's holding that an applicant's written description was adequate because the court erred in its claim construction

  8. Brand v. Miller

    487 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that junior party failed to prove derivation by senior party because it "did not show the relationship between" components and that the record was "[l]acking an explanation . . . as to how the [components] would be arranged to perform the claimed method"

  9. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  10. Section 41.201 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.201   Cited 15 times   15 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in §§ 41.2 and 41.100 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Accord benefit means Board recognition that a patent application provides a proper constructive reduction to practice under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) . Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) , in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive