§

Ex Parte Mitten et al

29196598 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2009)
Ex Parte Mitten et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,539 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"

  2. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,170 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.

    728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 201 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the legal effect of labeling may depend on the prominence of the label as well as how expensive and routinely purchased the product is

  4. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 38 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  5. In re Nalbandian

    661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved pincers

  6. In re Haruna

    249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1283. DECIDED: April 18, 2001. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Schall, Circuit Judge. Andrew J. Patch, Young Thompson, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellants. Joseph G. Piccolo, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellee, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,109 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."

  8. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 184 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 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