§

Ex Parte Tung et al

14280343 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)
Ex Parte Tung et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.

    239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 535 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary considerations based on "copying Amazon's ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown to be an embodiment of the claims"

  2. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International

    316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 241 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the term "vivid color appearance" not indefinite when the specification presented a formula for calculating the differential effect for a number of examples, which determined whether or not they had a "vivid colored appearance"

  3. Honeywell International Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp.

    488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 165 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " breach of duty [of candor] — including affirmative misrepresentations of material facts, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information — coupled with an intent to deceive, constitutes inequitable conduct"

  4. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  5. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  6. In re Baker Hughes Inc.

    215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 22 times

    No. 99-1463 DECIDED: June 14, 2000 Appealed from Patent Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals Interferences (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873). Kenneth Solomon, Howell Haferkamp, L.C., of St. Louis, Missouri, argued for appellant. Kristin L. Yohannan, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief wereAlbin F. Drost, Acting Solicitor; John M. Whealan, Acting Deputy Solicitor; and Kevin G. Baer, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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."

  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