§

Ex Parte Lakkala et al

10949568 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2013)
Ex Parte Lakkala et al

24 Cited authorities

  1. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 972 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  2. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

    553 U.S. 617 (2008)   Cited 165 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a licensee's sale of component computer parts that substantially embodied method patents held by the patentee was "authorized" by the patentee and exhausted the patentee's patents

  3. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 421 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  4. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 520 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  5. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 326 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

  6. In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent

    639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 289 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions" because such functions are "coextensive with the structure disclosed."

  7. Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear

    379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 285 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that term “circuit” itself in claim term “ ‘circuit’ for ‘monitoring a signal from the output terminal to generate a first feedback signal’ ” connotes structure

  8. Lighting World v. Birchwood Lighting

    382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 268 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"

  9. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 286 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not apply to the term “detent mechanism,” because “the noun ‘detent’ denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are expressed in functional terms.”

  10. Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.

    325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 216 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim limitation "interface circuit" was sufficient structure to avoid being a means-plus-function claim limitation because the adjective "interface" further defined the type of circuit claimed

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,374 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 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."

  13. Section 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    35 U.S.C. § 141   Cited 455 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Imposing no such requirement

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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)