§

Ex Parte 6446045 et al

95001061 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2012)
Ex Parte 6446045 et al

23 Cited authorities

  1. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 421 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  2. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 538 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

  3. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 326 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

  4. Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.

    675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 220 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because Noah had made the same indefiniteness arguments during claim construction before the district court, waiver did not apply

  5. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.

    599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 227 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "not interfering substantially" is sufficiently definite because a skilled artisan could use "the examples in the specification to determine whether interference with hybridization is substantial"

  6. Blackboard v. DESIRE2LEARN

    368 F. App'x 111 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 164 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even "a cursory motion suffices to preserve an issue on JMOL so long as it 'serves the purposes of Rule 50, i.e., to alert the court to the party's legal position and to put the opposing party on notice of the moving party's position as to the insufficiency of the evidence.'"

  7. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  8. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.

    673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 121 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding indefinite a claim reciting a computer-implemented means-plus-function term where "[t]he specification merely provide[d] functional language and d[id] not contain any step-by-step process" for performing the claimed function

  9. In re Caveney

    761 F.2d 671 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 112 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 102(b), invention must be "on sale" in the United States

  10. In re Alappat

    33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 82 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to a specially-programmed computer—a “specific machine to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result”—are directed to patent eligible subject matter

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,363 times   1046 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 6,130 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,997 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 549 times   890 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  15. 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"

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  19. Section 41.77 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.77   Cited 16 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse each decision of the examiner on all issues raised on each appealed claim, or remand the reexamination proceeding to the examiner for further consideration. The reversal of the examiner's determination not to make a rejection proposed by the third party requester constitutes a decision adverse to the patentability of the claims which are subject to that proposed rejection which will be set forth in the decision of the Patent

  20. Section 1.906 - Scope of reexamination in inter partes reexamination proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 1.906   Cited 4 times

    (a) Claims in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will be examined on the basis of patents or printed publications and, with respect to subject matter added or deleted in the reexamination proceeding, on the basis of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 . (b) Claims in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will not be permitted to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. (c) Issues other than those indicated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will not be resolved in an inter partes

  21. Section 1.956 - Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.956   Cited 1 times

    The time for taking any action by a patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for such extension must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, but in no case will the mere filing of a request effect any extension. Any request for such extension must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g) . See § 1.304(a) for extensions of time for filing a