§

Ex Parte Bertrand et al

13455463 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2018)
Ex Parte Bertrand et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 637 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  2. Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear

    379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 287 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that term “circuit” itself in claim term “ ‘circuit’ for ‘monitoring a signal from the output terminal to generate a first feedback signal’ ” connotes structure

  3. Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.

    325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 216 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim limitation "interface circuit" was sufficient structure to avoid being a means-plus-function claim limitation because the adjective "interface" further defined the type of circuit claimed

  4. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  5. Special Equipment Co. v. Coe

    324 U.S. 370 (1945)   Cited 42 times
    Reversing the rejection of a sub-combination claim directed to the previously claimed invention less one element

  6. Deering v. Winona Harvester Works

    155 U.S. 286 (1894)   Cited 155 times
    Concluding that mere testimony relevant to prior public use of the invention under the precursor to § 102(b) was insufficient to anticipate: "[O]ral testimony, unsupported by patents or exhibits, tending to show prior use of a device regularly patented is, in the nature of the case, open to grave suspicion."

  7. Application of Wilson

    424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the court cannot ignore the specific language in a claim

  8. 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

  9. 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"

  10. 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"

  11. 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