Appendix II — Z — Decisions Cited — Z
Ninth Edition, Revision 01.2024
[ Editor Note: Opinions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or its predecessor organizations (Board) made available to the public after the Board first published Standard Operating Procedure 2 in 1994 (addressing the publication of Board opinions and the designation of such opinions as precedential) that (1) expressly indicate that the opinion is binding precedent of the Board or (2) are identified as binding precedent on the Board’s Precedential opinion website ( www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing -patent-decisions/decisions-and-opinions/precedential ) are precedential and binding authority. Prior to 1994, a decision by the Board was considered binding on panels of the Board only if the opinion was authorized by the Board to be published. See Ex parte Holt, 19 USPQ2d 1211 (Bd.Pat. App. & Int. 1991).]
Editor Note: When possible, parallel citations to the United States Reports or Federal Reporter and the United States Patent Quarterly (USPQ) are provided and include pinpoint pages, if appropriate. However, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit published after July 11, 2022, no longer contain a pinpoint page for the USPQ citations.
Zahn, In re, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980) 1502 , 1503.02 , 1504.04 , 2172
Zechnall, Ex parte, 194 USPQ 461 (Bd. App. 1973) 2164.05(b)
Zenith Labs., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 19 F.3d 1418, 30 USPQ2d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 1302.14
Zenitz, In re, 333 F.2d 924, 142 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1964) 716.02(f)
Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 126 USPQ2d 1765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 2181
Zickendraht, In re, 319 F.2d 225, 138 USPQ 22 (CCPA 1963) 804 , 804.03 , 1504.06
Ziegler, In re, 443 F.2d 1211, 170 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1971) 804.01 , 809.03 , 821.04 , 821.04(a) , 821.04(b)
Ziegler, In re, 992 F.2d 1197, 26 USPQ2d 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 2103 , 2107.01 , 2107.02 , 2163 , 2163.03
Zimmerley, Ex parte, 153 USPQ 367 (Bd. App. 1966) 2181
Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 , 2111 , 2111.01 , 2111.03 , 2138 , 2171 , 2173.01 , 2173.02 , 2173.05(a) , 2181 , 2286
Zonenstein, In re, 172 F.2d 599, 80 USPQ 522 (CCPA 1949) 1504.02
Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 127 USPQ2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 2143.01
Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2143 , 2144.03
Cited authority
- 1502 Definition of a Design
- 1503.02 Drawing
- 1504.04 Considerations Under 35 U.S.C. 112
- 2172 Subject Matter Which the Inventor or a Joint Inventor Regards as The Invention
- 2164.05(b) Specification Must Be Enabling to Persons Skilled in the Art
- 1302.14 Reasons for Allowance
- 716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent
- 2181 Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Limitation
- 804 Definition of Double Patenting
- 804.03 Commonly Owned Inventions of Different Inventive Entities; Non-Commonly Owned Inventions Subject to a Joint Research Agreement
- 1504.06 Double Patenting
- 804.01 Prohibition of Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 121
- 809.03 Restriction Between Linked Inventions
- 821.04 Rejoinder
- 821.04(a) Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions
- 821.04(b) Rejoinder of Process Requiring an Allowable Product
- 2103 Patent Examination Process
- 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections
- 2107.02 Procedural Considerations Related to Rejections for Lack of Utility
- 2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, “Written Description” Requirement
- 2163.03 Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises
- 715 Swearing Behind a Reference — Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a)
- 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
- 2111.01 Plain Meaning
- 2111.03 Transitional Phrases
- 2138 Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)
- 2171 Two Separate Requirements for Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph
- 2173.01 Interpreting the Claims
- 2173.02 Determining Whether Claim Language is Definite
- 2173.05(a) New Terminology
- 2286 Ex Parte Reexamination and Litigation Proceedings
- 1504.02 Novelty
- 2143.01 Suggestion or Motivation To Modify the References
- 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness
- 2144.03 Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or “Well Known” Prior Art