§

Alex Garvin

12008385 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2020)
Alex Garvin

17 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,547 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. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 604 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 122 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's finding of invalidity for lack of enablement because defendant failed to provide evidence that established the person of ordinary skill would need to engage in “undue experimentation” in order to practice the asserted claims

  4. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 120 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting petition for rehearing and vacating prior panel decision reported at 285 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

  5. In re Kotzab

    217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 118 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a patent to be obvious, "there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant."

  6. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 68 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[d]ue to breaks in the chain of priority," the "[parent] patent [was] prior art for some of the asserted claims"

  7. Harris v. Shalala

    45 F.3d 1190 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that the district court does not "reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo."

  8. Princeton Biochemicals v. Beckman Coulter

    411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Characterizing the relevant inquiry as "[would] an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, confronted by the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, have selected the various elements from the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed"

  9. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  10. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 112 - Persons present at delivery of goods and money

    25 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 18 times

    The superintendent, agent, or subagent, together with such military officer as the President may direct, shall be present, and certify to the delivery of all goods and money required to be paid or delivered to the Indians. 25 U.S.C. § 112 R.S. §2088. EDITORIAL NOTES CODIFICATIONR.S. §2088 derived from act June 30, 1834, ch. 162, §13, 4 Stat. 737. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES INDIAN AGENTSThe services of Indian agents have been dispensed with. See note set out under section 64 of this

  16. Section 21 - Filing date and day for taking action

    35 U.S.C. § 21   Cited 16 times   19 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any paper or fee required to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office will be considered filed in the Office on the date on which it was deposited with the United States Postal Service or would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or emergencies designated by the Director. (b) When the day, or the last day, for taking any action or paying any fee in the United States Patent and Trademark Office

  17. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.142   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing requirement for restriction