§

Todd W. Sandwick

15201944 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2019)
Todd W. Sandwick

22 Cited authorities

  1. Honeywell Intern v. Hamilton Sundstrand

    370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 144 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecution history estoppel applies if the scope of the subject matter claimed in a rewritten independent claim has been narrowed to secure the patent

  2. South Corp. v. United States

    690 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 264 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Court of Claims opinions as binding precedent

  3. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 93 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of JMOL of lack of written description

  4. Yoon Ja Kim v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

    465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringement of dependent claims, "necessarily follows" a finding of noninfringement of independent claims

  5. Bilstad v. Wakalopulos

    386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 60 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of "plurality" of the Board of Patent Appeals

  6. In re Clement

    131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Deciding as a matter of law "whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims"

  7. Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc.

    142 F.3d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 49 times
    Finding patentee's repeated arguments regarding the limitations constituted an admission that the limitations were necessary to overcome the prior art and the reissue claims impermissibly recaptured surrendered subject matter

  8. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

  9. In re Youman

    679 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that section 251's “error” requirement covers “inadvertence or mistake,” not “deliberate” choices made by the patentee

  10. In re Mostafazadeh

    643 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Applying step three's “materially narrowing” analysis “relative to the original claims” where “original claims” are defined as “the claims before surrender”

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,370 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 6,133 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 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  14. Section 252 - Effect of reissue

    35 U.S.C. § 252   Cited 291 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a reissued patent shall have the same effect as the original patent “in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical ”

  15. 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"

  16. 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

  17. 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

  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)