§

Coon, Liz et al.

13750646 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2019)
Coon, Liz et al.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.

    633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 198 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FDA-required instructions did not create functional relationship to drug

  2. Randall Mfg. v. Rea

    733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 84 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of non-obviousness where court “narrowly focus[ed] on the four prior-art references” and ignored record evidence of “the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art” to explain motivation to combine or modify references

  3. In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.

    911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2017-2465 12-28-2018 IN RE: MARCO GULDENAAR HOLDING B.V., Appellant Christian D. Ehret, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Nathan J. Prepelka. Mary L. Kelly, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Coke Morgan Stewart, Philip J. Warrick. Chen, Circuit Judge. Christian D. Ehret, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented

  4. Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd.

    890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 21 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the United States Patent Office could adopt a construction that neither party proposed

  5. In re Distefano

    808 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 16 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the relevant limitation was not printed matter because although selected web assets can and likely do communicate some information, the content of the information is not claimed

  6. In re Ngai

    367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that allowing claims where the printed matter was the only novel contribution would allow "anyone [to] continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product"

  7. In re Gulack

    703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even though the claim included printed matter, the printed matter was still entitled to patentable weight because there was a functional relationship between the printed matter and its underlying substrate

  8. In re Lowry

    32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that printed matter doctrine did not apply to sequences of bits stored in memory because the claims dictated how application programs manage information, not the information content of the memory

  9. In re Bryan

    323 F. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    No. 2008-1461. March 31, 2009. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Serial No. 09/871,349. Paul J. Bryan, of Raleigh, NC, pro se. Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Joseph G. Piccolo, and William LaMarca, Associate Solicitors. Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, SCHALL

  10. Application of Bernhart

    417 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing patentability of a programmed computer

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,499 times   2273 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."

  13. Section 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    35 U.S.C. § 141   Cited 455 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Imposing no such requirement

  14. 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)

  15. 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