§

Ex Parte ROSENBERGER et al

14283014 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)
Ex Parte ROSENBERGER et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.

    417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 590 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim term “aesthetically pleasing” indefinite because, even though the preferred embodiment provided “examples of aesthetic features of screen displays that can be controlled by the authoring system,” the specification did not indicate “what selection of these features would be ‘aesthetically pleasing’ ”

  2. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.

    766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 430 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding terms of degree are not inherently indefinite as long as claim language provides enough certainty to one of skill in art when read in context of invention

  3. Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd.

    844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 268 times
    Holding that specific examples in the specification provided "points of comparison" that helped form an objective standard of the claim's scope

  4. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.

    758 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 210 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding “substantial evidence on which a reasonable jury could have found that the inventors were correctly named” despite conflicting trial testimony

  5. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile U.S., Inc.

    902 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 34 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding "optimize" indefinite in the context of claim language reciting "optimize end user application IP [(internet protocol)] QoS [(quality of service)] requirements"

  6. Source Search Tech. v. Lendingtree

    588 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 44 times
    Finding that genuine issues of material fact related to the differences between the claimed invention and prior art precluded a grant of summary judgment

  7. 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

  8. 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"

  9. 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