§

Nibaldo C. Inestrosa et al.

14761824 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020)
Nibaldo C. Inestrosa et al.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Dickinson v. Zurko

    527 U.S. 150 (1999)   Cited 1,026 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the more deferential substantial-evidence standard, and not the "stricter" and less deferential clear-error standard, applies to challenges to Patent and Trademark Office's patent denials, as it does to other agencies

  2. United States v. Utah Constr. Co.

    384 U.S. 394 (1966)   Cited 1,251 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts can give preclusive effect to certain administrative proceedings

  3. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 506 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  4. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.

    908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendment made as of right under MPEP weighs against an inference of intent to deceive

  5. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 82 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  6. In re Morsa

    713 F.3d 104 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming obviousness rejection of patent claims over single prior art press release

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,383 times   1047 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,141 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."

  9. 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"

  10. 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

  11. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.142   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing requirement for restriction