§

Punit Seth et al.

14238439 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2020)
Punit Seth et al.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 389 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the best mode does not extend to unclaimed, non-novel subject matter

  2. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. Glaxosmithkline

    349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 139 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that later patent claiming pharmaceutical composition was obvious variant of earlier patent claiming pharmaceutical composition with "enhanced storage stability, the closed container, the packaged unit-dosages"

  3. Pfizer v. Teva Pharm

    518 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 75 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir.2008), which addressed a patent infringement action filed by Pfizer on the '068 patent, we held the relevant claims of the '068 patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting in light of the earlier issued '165 patent.

  4. Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

    764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 46 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a claim construction that was supported by the intrinsic evidence and the inventor's testimony

  5. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    611 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in claim construction, "the specification to be consulted is that of the issued patent, not an earlier application"

  6. In re Lonardo

    119 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 35 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he claimed structure of the device suggests how it is to be used and that use thus would have been obvious"

  7. In re Basell Poliolefine

    547 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the two-way test inapplicable where the applicant failed to present the claims in earlier applications in the chain of priority — "Natta's actions, or inactions, had a direct effect on prosecution and thus were responsible for any delay in prosecution"

  8. In re Kaplan

    789 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 43 times
    Reversing PTO's rejection of claim for double patenting and noting that double patenting does not necessarily arise because a broad or generic claim reads on an invention defined by a narrower more specific claim in another patent

  9. Application of Vogel

    422 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a rejection of a claim in a later patent covering a method for packaging meat as obviousness-type double patenting in light of claims in an earlier patent covering a method for packaging pork

  10. Application of Schneller

    397 F.2d 350 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7883. June 27, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 10, 1968. Robert F. Hause, Buffalo, N.Y. (James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and Judges RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office

  11. 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."

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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)