§

SOFTWARE RADIO TECHNOLOGY PLC et al.

90013498 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2020)
SOFTWARE RADIO TECHNOLOGY PLC et al.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 521 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  2. 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"

  3. Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that an accused product did not infringe because it "relied on a different technology that could produce results unattainable by" the corresponding structure in the subject patent

  4. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  5. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.

    746 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 47 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal on claim preclusion grounds

  6. Predicate Logic v. Distributive Software

    544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that questions of broadening are "a matter of claim construction"

  7. Application of Hengehold

    440 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8345. April 29, 1971. Roy F. Schaeperklaus, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, attorney of record for appellant. William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael, Bradford Gardiner, Washington, D.C., James W. Pearce, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

  8. In re Sweet

    136 F.2d 722 (C.C.P.A. 1943)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 4716. June 1, 1943. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 277,584. Proceedings in the matter of the application of Carl C. Sweet for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. E. Clarkson Seward, of New York City, for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington, D.C. (R.F. Whitehead, of Washington

  9. 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

  10. 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,010 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 305   Cited 175 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.550   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings

  17. Section 41.35 - Jurisdiction over appeal

    37 C.F.R. § 41.35   Cited 7 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a)Beginning of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the proceeding passes to the Board upon the filing of a reply brief under § 41.41 or the expiration of the time in which to file such a reply brief, whichever is earlier. (b)End of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Board ends when: (1) The Director or the Board enters a remand order (see§§ 41.35(c) , 41.35(e) , and 41.50(a)(1) ), (2) The Board enters a final decision (see§ 41.2 ) and judicial review is sought or the time for seeking judicial review

  18. 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