§

Ex Parte Nakamura et al

13808457 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)
Ex Parte Nakamura et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 376 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  3. Johnston v. Ivac Corp.

    885 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that Section 112 "operates to cut back on the types of means which could literally satisfy the claim language" and thereby "restricts the scope of the literal claim language" by requiring the structures to appear in the specification

  4. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  5. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 95 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  6. In re Clay

    966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 87 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a reference was not reasonably pertinent where a PHOSITA "would not reasonably have expected to solve the [relevant] problem ... by considering" that reference

  7. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  8. In re De Blauwe

    736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-513. June 8, 1984. Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Pasadena, Cal., argued for appellants. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge. JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from that part of the decision of the

  9. Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.

    642 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2010-1513. June 22, 2011. Appeal from the District of New Jersey, Stanley R. Chesler, J. Henry J. Renk, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper Scinto, of New York, NY, argued for the plaintiffs-appellants. Jeremy C. Lowe, Axinn, Veltrop Harkrider LLP, of Hartford, CN, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were James D. Veltrop and Francis H. Morrison, III. Of counsel were Thomas K. Hedemann and Jason T. Murata. Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Tyco

  10. In re Kerkhoven

    626 F.2d 846 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 79-586. May 15, 1980. James J. Farrell, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, and Trademarks; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge. The Honorable Bernard Newman, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. NEWMAN, Judge. This is an

  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 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"

  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 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)