§

Ex Parte Kumar et al

11849148 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2014)
Ex Parte Kumar et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.

    54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 977 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "sputter-deposited dielectric" could not be formed by a two-step process because patentee argued during prosecution that it was formed by a one-step process

  2. Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.

    274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 455 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim term "portion" may be interpreted to encompass both "separate" or "integral"

  3. CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP

    112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 174 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding patent drawings highly relevant to understanding claims

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,143 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."

  5. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,511 times   2284 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  6. 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"

  7. 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

  8. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by