§

RingCentral, Inc.

2021001473 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)
RingCentral, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  2. Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.

    952 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 70 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining how we first, and primarily, rely on intrinsic evidence like claim language when construing claim terms

  3. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  4. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    457 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden is on the patentee to demonstrate that the alleged equivalent was unforeseeable

  5. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  6. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu

    2018-1154 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2019)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming the Board's obviousness finding based on a single reference where the petitioner's primary argument was that all of the elements were disclosed in a single reference, and the petitioner also argued, in the alternative, that some of the elements were disclosed by a second reference

  7. KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    2020-1270 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    2020-1270 12-23-2020 KEYNETIK, INC., Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appellee EDWARD F. BEHM, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARK W. HALDERMAN. PHILLIP W. CITROEN, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by NAVEEN MODI, CHETAN BANSAL, STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, JOSEPH PALYS. O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge. NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent

  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 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,468 times   2251 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  10. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 769 times   263 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  11. 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"

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and