§

Sergiy Vasylyev

15659037 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)
Sergiy Vasylyev

39 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,544 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. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 262 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

  3. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 173 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  4. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 144 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  5. South Corp. v. United States

    690 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 264 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Court of Claims opinions as binding precedent

  6. Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating Packing

    731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]n original patent cannot be infringed once a reissue patent has issued, for the original patent is surrendered" and "[t]he original claims are dead"

  7. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 86 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  8. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 80 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  9. In re Gurley

    27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 100 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

  10. Yoon Ja Kim v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

    465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringement of dependent claims, "necessarily follows" a finding of noninfringement of independent claims

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,120 times   473 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,983 times   993 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 599 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  14. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  15. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 269 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  16. Section 111 - Application

    35 U.S.C. § 111   Cited 218 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Requiring submission of a fee with the application

  17. 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"

  18. 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

  19. Section 371 - National stage: Commencement

    35 U.S.C. § 371   Cited 52 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Referring to the "requirements" in specific "subsection"

  20. Section 1.78 - Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications

    37 C.F.R. § 1.78   Cited 65 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that an applicant can file a continuation application to adjust claims of the patent

  21. 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

  22. 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)

  23. Section 1.76 - Application data sheet

    37 C.F.R. § 1.76   Cited 6 times   8 Legal Analyses

    (a)Application data sheet. An application data sheet is a sheet or sheets that may be submitted in a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) , a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) , a nonprovisional international design application, or a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and must be submitted when required by § 1.55 or 1.78 to claim priority to or the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 , 120 , 121 , 365 , or 386 . An application data sheet

  24. Section 1.17 - Patent application and reexamination processing fees

    37 C.F.R. § 1.17   Cited 5 times   51 Legal Analyses

    (a) Extension fees pursuant to § 1.136(a) : (1) For reply within first month: Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $44.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 88.00 By other than a small or micro entity 220.00 (2) For reply within second month: Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $128.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 256.00 By other than a small or micro entity 640.00 (3) For reply within third month: Table 3 to Paragraph (a)(3) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $296.00