Ex Parte Dennison et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,860 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"
  2. Liebel-Flarsheim Company v. Medrad, Inc.

    358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,328 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms are given the full breadth of their ordinary meaning unless a clear disavowal of scope is stated in the specification
  3. Irdeto Access v. Echostar Satellite Corp.

    383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 262 times
    Holding that "absent . . . an accepted meaning [in the art], we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself"
  4. Rhine v. Casio, Incorporated

    183 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Federal Circuit has "admonished against judicial rewriting of claims to preserve validity"
  5. Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

    457 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 93 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 for claiming subject matter that was “non-overlapping” with the claim from which it depended
  6. DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.

    537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 59 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding cannot import limitations from apparatus and system claims into method claims when method claim not directed to structure or assembly of apparatus or system claim
  7. In re Gal

    980 F.2d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that different structure to achieve different purpose was not an obvious design choice
  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,393 times   1048 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   481 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."
  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 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
  12. 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)