KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

In re Kahn

Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.

Noting that licenses "may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record" (quoting In re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) )

In re GPAC Inc.

In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

Cable Elec. Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.

Holding on summary judgment that even though commercial success could be deduced, it deserved no weight because a nexus was not established

In re Oetiker

Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

In re Geisler

Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

In re Jung

Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.

Affirming invalidation of a patent for a hinged pen arm because a person skilled in pen art would have looked to hinge and fastener art for a way to attach a pen to a pen arm

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

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 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Section 306 - Appeal

Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete

Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings