§

Ex Parte Vanttinen et al

09864017 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2009)
Ex Parte Vanttinen et al

22 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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

  3. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 285 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not apply to the term “detent mechanism,” because “the noun ‘detent’ denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are expressed in functional terms.”

  4. 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"

  5. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  6. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs

    806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that the limitation that the claimed wheelchair have a "front leg portion . . . so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats thereof" was not indefinite

  7. Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co.

    983 F.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 182 times
    Holding that section 112, ¶ 6, permits the use of means-plus-function language in claims, but with the proviso that the claims are limited to the structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification and their equivalents

  8. Halliburton Co. v. Walker

    329 U.S. 1 (1946)   Cited 165 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 71 USPQ 175 (1946), the Supreme Court held invalid a claim that was drafted in means-plus-function fashion.

  9. U.S. v. Telectronics, Inc.

    857 F.2d 778 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that district court cannot construct limitations of a broader claim so that they are the same as the limitations of a narrower claim

  10. Application of Fuetterer

    319 F.2d 259 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 33 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6897. June 28, 1963. John Mahoney, Cleveland, Ohio (J. Harold Kilcoyne, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 38-49 in application Ser. No. 498,089, entitled

  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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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)

  19. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by