4 Cited authorities
Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa
543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 369 times 40 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design
Richardson v. Stanley Works
597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 125 times 5 Legal AnalysesFinding functional necessity of configuration illustrated by the prior art where "[e]very piece of prior art identified by the parties that incorporates similar elements configures them in the exact same way"
Application of Garbo
287 F.2d 192 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 8 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 6657. February 21, 1961. Paul W. Garbo, pro se, Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate 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 provisions of Section
Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions
37 C.F.R. § 42.71 Cited 22 times 44 Legal Analyses(a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A