§

Ex Parte Bonadio et al

10600812 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)
Ex Parte Bonadio et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Tronzo v. Biomet

    156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 197 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding substantial evidence did not support finding that parent application provided written description of later-claimed genus encompassing any shape where it "tout[ed] the advantages of conical shape," mentioned other shapes only in reciting the prior art, and "specifically distinguishe[d] the prior art as inferior"

  2. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.

    214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 74 times
    In Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the court explained the need "to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification."

  3. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  4. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  5. In re Rijckaert

    9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 93-1206. November 23, 1993. Edward W. Goodman, North American Philips Corp., of Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Algy Tamoshunas. Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the

  6. Knorr v. Pearson

    671 F.2d 1368 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature corroborated the junior party's testimony as to actual reduction to practice in an interference proceeding

  7. Curtis Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Plasti-Clip Corp.

    933 F. Supp. 94 (D.N.H. 1995)   Cited 14 times

    Civil No. 89-430-SD. April 20, 1995. Craig L. Staples, Cleveland, Waters Bass, PA, Concord, NH, Jack R. Pirozzolo, Willcox, Pirozzolo McCarthy, Boston, MA, for Curtis Manufacturing Company, Inc. W. Wright Danenbarger, Wiggin Nourie, William O. Hennessey, Hayes, Soloway, Hennessey, Grossman Hage, Jamie N. Hage, Roussos, Hage Hodes, Manchester, NH, for Plasti-Clip Corporation, Daniel Faneuf. Craig L. Staples, Cleveland, Waters Bass, PA, Concord, NH, Jack R. Pirozzolo, Willcox, Pirozzolo McCarthy, Boston

  8. In re Deckler

    977 F.2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a losing priority judgment in an interference proceeding bars the loser from obtaining a patent containing claims that are patentably indistinguishable from the claims corresponding to the lost count

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,383 times   1047 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

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,010 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 271 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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)

  16. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal