§

Ex Parte 6183790 et al

90011128 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2013)
Ex Parte 6183790 et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,178 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 538 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

  3. Trimed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

    608 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 83 times

    No. 2009-1423. June 9, 2010. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, J. Lee F. Grossman, Niro, Scavone, Haller Niro, of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Mark M. Grossman, Grossman Law Offices, of Chicago, IL; and Sean M. Kneafsey, Kneafsey, Tostado Associates LLP, of Los Angeles, CA. Gregory J. Vogler, McAndrews, Held Malloy, Ltd., of Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief

  4. In re Soni

    54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "substantially improved results" to overcome obviousness when the 50-fold improvement in tensile strength was much greater than would have been predicted

  5. Belkin Int'l, Inc. v. Kappos

    696 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Belkin International, Inc. v. Kappos, 696 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012), this court explained the § 312(c) non-appealability bar (under slightly different earlier language) as follows: "[A]n inter partes reexamination is a two-step process.

  6. In re Sullivan

    498 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Submitting evidence describing "an unexpected property or result from the use" of the claimed invention, a composition claim for an antivenom, in arguing to PTO that invention was nonobvious

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,124 times   478 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."

  8. 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"

  9. 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

  10. 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