§

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.

2019006111 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.

27 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 635 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  2. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 612 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 422 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  4. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 328 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

  5. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 282 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  6. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.

    599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 228 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "not interfering substantially" is sufficiently definite because a skilled artisan could use "the examples in the specification to determine whether interference with hybridization is substantial"

  7. Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.

    198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 298 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a means-plus-function limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art

  8. Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

    800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 170 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding "compliance mechanism" nested in a method claim was a means-plus function term

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

    91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 286 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.”

  10. Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.

    769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 137 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms "program recognition device" and "program loading device" are means-plus-function terms because they fail to connote sufficient structure either in the form of hardware or software

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,386 times   1048 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 6,143 times   481 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 6,012 times   1009 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 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)

  17. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and