§

Ex Parte Bu et al

11372430 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2009)
Ex Parte Bu et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,547 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  3. Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated

    190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 160 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized

  4. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner

    778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 130 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim

  5. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  6. In re Buszard

    504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2006-1489. Serial No. 10/429,429. September 27, 2007. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Thomas A. Ladd, Baker Daniels LLP, of Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellants. Shannon M. Hansen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for the director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Heather F. Auyang, Associate Solicitor. Before

  7. In re Marosi

    710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 36 times
    Holding claim limitations "are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"

  8. Application of Antonie

    559 F.2d 618 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 76-681. Decided August 18, 1977. Arthur H. Seidel, Thomas W. Ehrmann, Milwaukee, Wis. (Quarles Brady, Milwaukee, Wis.), attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, R.D. Edmonds, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and HERBERT N. MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal

  9. Application of Aller

    220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no criticality where claimed conditions allegedly contributed to roughly 20 percentage point improvement in yield

  10. Application of Brown

    459 F.2d 531 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8621. May 18, 1972. William C. Long, David Dick, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  11. 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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)