§

Ex Parte VanRiper et al

10964282 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)
Ex Parte VanRiper et al

15 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. Nat'l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd.

    357 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence need not reach the level of prior art to be considered for motivation to combine

  3. Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price

    485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 90 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective considerations of nonobviousness presented, including substantial evidence of commercial success, praise, and long-felt need, were inadequate to overcome a strong showing of primary considerations that rendered the claims at issue invalid

  4. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  5. 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

  6. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  7. In re Heck

    699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions"

  8. Application of Ratti

    270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6452. September 30, 1959. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Raymond L. Greist, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for 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 the

  9. Application of Gershon

    372 F.2d 535 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7722. February 16, 1967. Eben M. Graves, Allen G. Weise, New York City, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming final rejection

  10. In re Graf

    52 C.C.P.A. 1206 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7343. April 15, 1965. Rudolph S. Bley, Elizabethton, Tenn. (James H. Ewing, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. Appellant filed an application serial No. 112,160 on May 15, 1961 for an improvement in the process of spinning hollow filament viscose yarns, which application was a continuation-in-part

  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)