§

Ex Parte Roberts et al

09956372 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2009)
Ex Parte Roberts et al

13 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. In re Bilski

    545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 270 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-preemption under the second step of what was then called the "Freeman –Walter –Abele test" requires that the claim be "tied to a particular machine or bring about a particular transformation of a particular article"

  3. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 472 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  4. Miles Laboratories Inc. v. Shandon Inc.

    997 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 183 times
    Noting that operability is relevant "to the enablement requirement of § 112"

  5. North American Vaccine v. American Cyanamid

    7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 175 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent is presumed valid and party attacking patent has burden of proving facts by clear and convincing evidence

  6. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc. v. Lucks Co.

    264 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 59 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "conventional printing processes" of foodstuffs did not include ink jet printing at the time of the patent even though thousands of ink jet printers were sold around the time of the patent

  7. Howmedica Osteonics v. Tranquil Prospects

    401 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that "references to the 'cross-sectional area' in the discussion between the examiner and the applicant at a later time are relevant to the meaning of 'traverse sectional dimensions' to one of skill in the art at the earlier time of filing"

  8. Application of Moore

    439 F.2d 1232 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 46 times
    Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims

  9. 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

  10. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 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."

  11. Section 1031 - Exchange of real property held for productive use or investment

    26 U.S.C. § 1031   Cited 743 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Providing for the nonrecognition of gain from exchanges of investment property for other investment property of like kind

  12. 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"

  13. 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