§

SOFTWARE RADIO TECHNOLOGY PLC et al.

90013498 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020)
SOFTWARE RADIO TECHNOLOGY PLC et al.

19 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. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 518 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  3. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 660 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  4. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 263 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims at issue as indefinite because they simultaneously claimed an apparatus and method steps

  5. Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 337 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim term "relatively small" is not indefinite

  6. Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that an accused product did not infringe because it "relied on a different technology that could produce results unattainable by" the corresponding structure in the subject patent

  7. 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

  8. HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co.

    667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 87 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on appeal, HTC waived its argument that the specification disclosed no algorithm because, before the district court, it only asserted that the specification was indefinite as lacking disclosure of sufficient physical structure

  9. In re Etter

    756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that whether one prior art reference can be incorporated into another is "basically irrelevant."

  10. In re Swanson

    540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 58 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the scope of an examiner's prior consideration of a reference is a question of fact

  11. 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

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 305   Cited 174 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"

  14. 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

  15. Section 41.35 - Jurisdiction over appeal

    37 C.F.R. § 41.35   Cited 7 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a)Beginning of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the proceeding passes to the Board upon the filing of a reply brief under § 41.41 or the expiration of the time in which to file such a reply brief, whichever is earlier. (b)End of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Board ends when: (1) The Director or the Board enters a remand order (see§§ 41.35(c) , 41.35(e) , and 41.50(a)(1) ), (2) The Board enters a final decision (see§ 41.2 ) and judicial review is sought or the time for seeking judicial review

  16. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by