§

Ex Parte McKnight et al

14177351 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2018)
Ex Parte McKnight et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,890 times   170 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. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Tronzo v. Biomet

    156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 197 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding substantial evidence did not support finding that parent application provided written description of later-claimed genus encompassing any shape where it "tout[ed] the advantages of conical shape," mentioned other shapes only in reciting the prior art, and "specifically distinguishe[d] the prior art as inferior"

  4. Howmedica Osteonics v. Wright Med. Tech

    540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reference to "the condylar element" meant "only one condylar element"

  5. In re Bigio

    381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 71 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Affirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"

  6. Bilstad v. Wakalopulos

    386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 61 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of "plurality" of the Board of Patent Appeals

  7. Hyatt v. Dudas

    492 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the patent examiner's initial rejection in which the examiner found failure to satisfy the written description requirement because “the written description did not support the particular claimed combination of elements”— i.e., “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination ”

  8. In re Curtis

    354 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an application would not have put persons skilled in the art on notice of the broad scope claimed by the applicant, where there is "`unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated'" (quoting In re Smythe, 480 F.2d at 1383)

  9. B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Sony Mobile Commc'ns (Usa) Inc.

    657 F. App'x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    2015-1882 2015-1883 2015-1884 2015-1887 2015-1888 08-12-2016 B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., Appellant v. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC., Appellee B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., Appellant v. GOOGLE, INC., Appellee B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., Appellant v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Appellee B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Appellee DANIEL J. WEINBERG, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Redwood City, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT E. FREITAS. JEFFREY PAUL

  10. In re SP Controls, Inc.

    453 F. App'x 990 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Reexamination No. 90/007,802 2011-1119 12-21-2011 IN RE SP CONTROLS, INC. MICHAEL E. DERGOSITS, Dergosits & Noah, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for appellant. ROBERT J. MCMANUS, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were,RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor and WILLIAM LAMARCA, Associate Solicitor. SCHALL NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 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 6,172 times   492 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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 99 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 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)

  17. Section 1.46 - Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter

    37 C.F.R. § 1.46   Cited 2 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. (b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph