§

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

2020002836 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 383 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the best mode does not extend to unclaimed, non-novel subject matter

  2. In re Goodman

    11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO actions did not dictate the rate of prosecution when Goodman accepted early issuance of species claims and filed a continuation application to prosecute genus claims

  3. In re Hubbell

    709 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 33 times   6 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1547. 2013-03-7 In re Jeffrey HUBBELL, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall. Rivka D. Monheit, Pabst Patent Group LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Patrea L. Pabst. Frances M. Lynch, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Amy J. Nelson, Associate Solicitor. O'MALLEY Rivka D. Monheit, Pabst Patent Group LLP, of Atlanta

  4. Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.

    753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 30 times   28 Legal Analyses
    In Gilead, we recognized that use of issuance date alone, post-URAA, to determine whether a patent was invalid for ODP had "several shortcomings."

  5. In re Berg

    140 F.3d 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus

  6. In re Fallaux

    564 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 18 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that “harassment by multiple assignees” provides “a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting”

  7. In re Braat

    937 F.2d 589 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that while " better characterization of the relationship between the inventions is as combination/subcombination," the reasoning of Borah is applicable

  8. In re Van Ornum

    686 F.2d 937 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 29 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding common ownership requirement set forth in 37 § C.F.R. 1.321 to be valid, reasoning that it is "desirable to tie both the termination and the ownership of the two patents together"

  9. Application of Braithwaite

    379 F.2d 594 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7800. June 15, 1967. Rehearing Denied October 5, 1967. Marzall, Johnston, Cook Root, Richard L. Johnston, Herbert B. Keil, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision

  10. 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,990 times   998 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.321 - Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers

    37 C.F.R. § 1.321   Cited 75 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Incorporating the language of § 253

  15. Section 1.183 - Suspension of rules

    37 C.F.R. § 1.183   Cited 40 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for waiver of Patent Office rules

  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)

  17. 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