§
Ex Parte Yu

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,545 times   185 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. Ortho-McNeil v. Mylan Lab

    520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 179 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patented invention was not obvious where a POSA had no reason to select the exact route among several unpredictable alternatives

  4. PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries Corp.

    156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 203 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, for a claim reciting glass "consisting essentially of" certain materials, the district court properly "left it to the jury to determine whether the amounts of [an unclaimed ingredient had] a material effect on the basic and novel characteristics of the glass"

  5. Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.

    655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 89 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to find a claim obvious when the when prior art does not provide "indication of which parameters were critical" or "direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful"

  6. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  7. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 67 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any overlap between a claimed range and one in the prior art is sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness, even if insufficient to render it unpatentable

  8. Merck Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories

    874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prior art's disclosure of a multitude of combinations failed to render any particular formulation less obvious

  9. Application of Mills

    470 F.2d 649 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8796. December 29, 1972. Marion C. Staves, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C. Robert D. Edmonds, Oakton, Va., of Counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals sustaining the examiners's rejection of claims 1-4

  10. In re de Lajarte

    337 F.2d 870 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7237. November 5, 1964. John L. Seymour, Bauer Seymour, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section

  11. 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."

  12. 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"

  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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)