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"
Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency
Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art
Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.
Reversing the Board's affirmance of an examiner's obviousness rejection where the Board failed to identify "concrete evidence in the record" supporting its findings
Holding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear
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."
37 C.F.R. § 42.104 Cited 28 times 54 Legal Analyses
Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"