§

Ex Parte Pettey

12412686 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)
Ex Parte Pettey

9 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. Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.

    425 U.S. 273 (1976)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a combination is obvious if a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields predictable results

  3. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc.

    725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that dependent claims fall with the independent claim on which they depend unless argued separately

  4. Application of Harza

    274 F.2d 669 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6562. January 19, 1960. Olson Trexler, Chicago, Ill. (Robert M. Wolters) Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d)

  5. In re Brandt

    64 F.2d 693 (C.C.P.A. 1933)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3087. April 24, 1933. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 715661. Proceedings in the matter of the application of Edward J. Brandt for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming a decision of the Examiner rejecting certain claims of the application, the applicant appeals. Decision of the Board of Appeals affirmed. Joseph H. Milans and Calvin T. Milans, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant

  6. 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."

  7. 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"

  8. 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

  9. 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)