§

COOLIT SYSTEMS INC.

2019003466 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2020)
COOLIT SYSTEMS INC.

24 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,861 times   167 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. Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp.

    175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 584 times
    Holding that "modifiers will not be added to broad terms standing alone"

  3. Nystrom v. Trex Co.

    424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 303 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the law of the regional circuit governs motions for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

  4. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  5. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc.

    222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 211 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the public is entitled to rely on the patentee's representations in the prosecution history concerning the scope and meaning of the claims

  6. Virginia Panel Corporation v. Mac Panel Co.

    133 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 187 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was "unsound" to "rel[y] on the absence of a drawing" showing devices with non-linearly moving plates as a justification to limit the claims to devices having "purely linear[ly]" moving plates

  7. Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp.

    845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that patent's inclusion of examples of "external" plasticizers did not prove that patent claims excluded internal plasticizers

  8. Lemelson v. United States

    752 F.2d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 192 times
    Holding that the district court properly interpreted the claim at issue, and the court's failure to consider the prosecution history was therefore harmless error not meriting reversal

  9. Fin Control Systems Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc.

    265 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 98 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court is obligated to rule on defendant's counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability despite court's finding of no infringement

  10. In re Suitco Surface

    603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 36 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Suitco, we disagreed with the Board's broadest reasonable construction of the term "finishing the top surface of the floor," because the Board's construction "allow[ed] the finishing material to fall anywhere above the surface being finished regardless of whether it actually ‘finishes’ the surface."

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,394 times   1049 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 6,148 times   482 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,016 times   1014 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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