§
Ex Parte Lin

16 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 662 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  2. Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp.

    724 F.2d 951 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 210 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the argument that an additional limitation be read into claims 1, 3, and 4 was only correct with respect to claim 1, and thus, only claim 1 was invalid

  3. Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc.

    720 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 148 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims"

  4. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.

    349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 78 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no material misrepresentation in part because a PTO examiner's reasons for allowance did not reflect that the PTO relied on the allegedly false applicant statements

  5. In re Brana

    51 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 43 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent applicants had established the utility of claimed therapeutic compounds by presenting in vitro test results and evidence of structural similarity to therapeutically useful compounds

  6. In re Cortright

    165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the patent's written description must "illuminate a credible utility" to meet the enablement requirement

  7. In re Swartz

    232 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 12 times
    Discussing the "substantial evidence" that claimed LENR results are "irreproducible" and that "those skilled in the art would 'reasonably doubt' the asserted utility and operability" of LENR technology

  8. In re Ziegler

    992 F.2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 17 times

    No. 91-1430. April 21, 1993. Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined June 29, 1993. Arnold Sprung, Sprung, Horn, Kramer Woods, Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were Nathaniel D. Kramer and Alan J. Grant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Adriene B. Lepiane. Paul E. Crawford and George Pazuniak, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, Wilmington, DE, were on the brief, for amicus curiae, Aristech Chemical Corp.

  9. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  10. Application of Houghton

    433 F.2d 820 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 1 times
    Flying machine operating on "flapping or flutter function"

  11. 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

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,492 times   2273 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."

  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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  16. 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)