§

Ex Parte Singh et al

12175441 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014)
Ex Parte Singh et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm

    492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 153 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the invention not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have selected for further investigation

  2. Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's

    533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 106 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a chemical compound non-obvious where the invention at issue replaced a more lipophilic substituent with a less lipophilic substituent in contravention of the prior art's teaching that lipophilicity at a particular position on a ring structure conferred beneficial results

  3. Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

    566 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 82 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Denying Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction

  4. Daiichi Sankyo v. Matrix Lab

    619 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 35 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming district court's finding that asserted claims were not obvious under structural obviousness analysis because defendant failed to demonstrate POSA would have chosen compounds as lead compounds

  5. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  6. In re Hedges

    783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Proceeding against accepted wisdom is evidence of unobviousness

  7. Application of Wesslau

    353 F.2d 238 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7447. November 26, 1965. Arnold Sprung, New York City, Arnold B. Christen, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 35-43 in appellant's application entitled "Process for the Production of Polyethylene

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,124 times   478 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."

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  10. 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