§

Ex Parte BOON et al

08819669 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 16, 2009)
Ex Parte BOON et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Grogan v. Garner

    498 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 9,088 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the standard of proof for the dischargeability exceptions in 11 U.S.C. § 523 is the ordinary preponderance-of-the-evidence standard"

  2. Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co.

    744 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 249 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disqualification motions are procedural matters "that are not unique to patent issues . . ."

  3. Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.

    460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding incorporation of only particular teachings from a prior art patent where the host document's incorporation clause stated that "the procedure for preparing intestinal submucosa" detailed in the prior art patent was "expressly incorporated herein by reference"

  4. Winbond Electronics v. International Trade

    262 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that an administrative law judge did not abuse its discretion in temporally limiting the waiver because the privilege holder put the privileged communications "at issue" during a defined time period

  5. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.

    393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 53 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding examiner demand, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105, for “information that the applicant is in the best position to most cheaply provide”

  6. Hyatt v. Dudas

    492 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the patent examiner's initial rejection in which the examiner found failure to satisfy the written description requirement because “the written description did not support the particular claimed combination of elements”— i.e., “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination ”

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. 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