§

Ex Parte Folmsbee et al

12580912 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)
Ex Parte Folmsbee et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Burt v. Titlow

    571 U.S. 12 (2013)   Cited 3,892 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's decision declining to set aside state court finding that a lawyer was not ineffective did not exonerate the lawyer from the fact that he “may well have violated the rules of professional conduct”

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,538 times   183 Legal Analyses
    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"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,168 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  5. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil

    774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[t]he invention must be viewed not with the blueprint drawn by the inventor, but in the state of the art that existed at the time"

  6. Claughton v. Mixson

    33 F.3d 4 (4th Cir. 1994)   Cited 56 times
    Granting relief where equitable distribution had already been made but final order was not entered

  7. In re Buszard

    504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2006-1489. Serial No. 10/429,429. September 27, 2007. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Thomas A. Ladd, Baker Daniels LLP, of Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellants. Shannon M. Hansen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for the director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Heather F. Auyang, Associate Solicitor. Before

  8. In re Gordon

    733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a modification which renders the invention inoperable for its intended purpose is not obvious because it teaches away from the invention

  9. In re Laskowski

    871 F.2d 115 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    No. 88-1349. April 3, 1989. Roland A. Fuller, III, of Barnes Thornburg, Indianapolis, Indiana, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were William R. Coffey and Jerry E. Hyland, Indianapolis, Ind. John C. Martin, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before NEWMAN, ARCHER, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,329 times   1038 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,105 times   470 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 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

  14. Section 7 - Library

    35 U.S.C. § 7   Cited 54 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Commissioner power to designate "at least three members of the Board of Appeals and Interferences" to review "adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents"

  15. Section 3 - Officers and employees

    35 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 50 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

  16. 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

  17. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)