Source: https://casetext.com/admin-law/stephan-gronenborn/cited-authorities?citingPage=1&sort=relevance
Timestamp: 2020-01-17 23:10:31
Document Index: 313358804

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 103', '§ 6', '§ 134', '§ 134', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

Cited in Stephan Gronenborn, 14650606 - (D) | Casetext
14650606 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalysesCiting BriefsBriefsCiting CasesCiting CasesCited AuthoritiesCited Authorities7
858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 276 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."
150 U.S. 164 (1893) Cited 19 times
In Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164, 170, 14 S.Ct. 68, 70, 37 L.Ed. 1039 (1843), the Court held that the casting of a stone grate in one piece, which was formerly cast in two pieces, did not rise to the level of an invention.
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 6,258 times 729 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
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 5,328 times 337 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."
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 135 times 23 Legal Analyses
Providing that the Board "shall ... conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews pursuant to chapters 31 and 32."
Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 134 Cited 88 times 4 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
§ 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 not