§

Zaffino V. Hughes

12870017 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2014)
Zaffino V. Hughes

17 Cited authorities

  1. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  2. Hahn v. Wong

    892 F.2d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Corroborating evidence must be "independent of information received from the inventor"

  3. U.S. v. Bradley

    5 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 37 times
    In Bradley, we noted that evidence of an uncharged murder posed a "tremendous risk... that the jury decided that [the defendants] should not go unpunished because of their propensity for violence."

  4. Scott v. Koyama

    281 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the asserted reference was communicated in the United States where a full description of the reference was contained in written materials disclosed to persons in Wilmington, Delaware

  5. Griffith v. Kanamaru

    816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 87-1042. April 8, 1987. Eric S. Spector of Jones, Tullar Cooper, P.C., Arlington, Va., argued for appellant. Harold C. Wegner of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C., argued for appellees. With him on brief was Helmuth A. Wegner, of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C.; Barry E. Bretschneider and Herbert I. Cantor, of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before BISSELL, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit

  6. Bey v. Kollonitsch

    806 F.2d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    Requiring “reasonable diligence during the continuous ... critical period”

  7. Gould v. Schawlow

    363 F.2d 908 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lapse in activity of “nearly two months” defeated a claim of diligence

  8. Kistler v. Weber

    412 F.2d 280 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8169. June 26, 1969. Rehearing Denied September 18, 1969. Stowell Stowell, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Harold T. Stowell, Albert Tockman, A. Donald Messenheimer, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Chisholm Spencer, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee. Oscar L. Spencer, William S. Britt, Pittsburgh, Pa., Conrad Christel, Buffalo, N.Y., George R. Jones, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, HOLTZOFF and McLAUGHLIN, Judges, sitting by designation

  9. D'Amico v. Koike

    347 F.2d 867 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7305. July 1, 1965. Chester A. Williams, Jr., Edward L. Bell, New York City, for appellant. Joseph C. Sullivan, Daniel H. Kane, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences in Interference No. 91,541 awarding priority to the junior party, Koike, in an interference between application serial No. 588,070, filed by Koike on May 29, 1956, and application

  10. Burns v. Curtis

    172 F.2d 588 (C.C.P.A. 1949)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 5530-5534. February 1, 1949. Appeal from the Board of Interference Examiners, Interference Nos. 80,772, 81,029, 81,030, 81,031, and 81,684. Interference proceedings between Louis G. Burns and Russell R. Curtis. From decisions of the Board of Interference Examiners awarding priority of invention to Russell R. Curtis, Louis G. Burns appeals. Decisions affirmed. Max W. Zabel, Edward C. Gritzbaugh and Benton Baker, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. The Firm of Charles W. Hills,

  11. 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"

  12. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  13. Section 41.202 - Suggesting an interference

    37 C.F.R. § 41.202   Cited 12 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a)Applicant. An applicant, including a reissue applicant, may suggest an interference with another application or a patent. The suggestion must: (1) Provide sufficient information to identify the application or patent with which the applicant seeks an interference, (2) Identify all claims the applicant believes interfere, propose one or more counts, and show how the claims correspond to one or more counts, (3) For each count, provide a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party corresponding

  14. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal

  15. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1

  16. Section 41.154 - Form of evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 41.154   Cited 1 times

    (a) Evidence consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All evidence must be submitted in the form of an exhibit. (b)Translation required. When a party relies on a document or is required to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation must be filed with the document. (c) An exhibit must conform with the requirements for papers in § 41.106 of this subpart