§

Ex Parte Nguyen et al

10374777 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2009)
Ex Parte Nguyen et al

29 Cited authorities

  1. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 538 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

  2. B. Braun Medical v. Abbott Laboratories

    124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 511 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's pre- Markman failure to instruct the jury on the construction of a means-plus-function limitation was harmless because the jury adopted the correct construction

  3. 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

  4. Medical Instr. and Diagnostics v. Elekta

    344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 328 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court erred in finding that defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact on obvious; noting, inter alia , that "[defendant's] expert's declaration quotes from several prior art articles that expressly discuss the combination of stereotaxy with computer imaging technologies"

  5. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.

    318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 321 times
    Holding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims

  6. Default Proof Credit Card v. Home Depot

    412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the point-of-sale assembly was not the corresponding structure for the dispensing means where the two were recited in different parts of the same claim

  7. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

    250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the specification's reference to "commercially available vacuum sensors" constituted sufficient structure, as one skilled in the art would have understood the reference

  8. Biomedino v. Waters

    490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 199 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure"

  9. Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude Medical

    296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 187 times
    Holding that it is improper to limit a function beyond what is stated in the claim

  10. O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co. Inc.

    115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 203 times
    Holding that the step of "passing the analyte slug through a passage" was not subject to section 112, ¶ 6 because the term "passage" referred to the place where the recited function occurs rather than the structure that accomplishes the 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 41.50 - 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

  16. 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

  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)