§

Ex Parte Johnson et al

12026978 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2012)
Ex Parte Johnson et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.

    417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 588 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim term “aesthetically pleasing” indefinite because, even though the preferred embodiment provided “examples of aesthetic features of screen displays that can be controlled by the authoring system,” the specification did not indicate “what selection of these features would be ‘aesthetically pleasing’ ”

  2. Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating Packing

    731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]n original patent cannot be infringed once a reissue patent has issued, for the original patent is surrendered" and "[t]he original claims are dead"

  3. In reStaats

    671 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 4 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2010–1443.Serial No. 11/503,541. 2012-03-5 In re Erik P. STAATS and Robin D. Lash. John M. Whealan, of Silver Spring, Maryland, argued for appellants. Of counsel on the brief were Jeffrey A. Lamken and Lucas M. Walker, MoloLamken LLP, of Washington, DC, Robert A. Hulse, Fenwick & West, LLP, of San Francisco, California, and Richard J. Lutton, Jr., Apple Inc., of Cupertino, California. William Lamarca, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued

  4. Application of Doll

    419 F.2d 925 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8223. January 8, 1970. Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue Raymond, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant, Arthur S. Tenser, New York City, of counsel. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  5. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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

  6. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  7. 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

  8. Section 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 52 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  9. Section 1.172 - Reissue applicant

    37 C.F.R. § 1.172   Cited 7 times

    (a) The reissue applicant is the original patentee, or the current patent owner if there has been an assignment. A reissue application must be accompanied by the written consent of all assignees, if any, currently owning an undivided interest in the patent. All assignees consenting to the reissue must establish their ownership in the patent by filing in the reissue application a submission in accordance with the provisions of § 3.73(c) of this chapter. (b) A reissue will be granted to the original