10 Cited authorities
In re Baxter Int'l, Inc.
678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 112 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that a party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief, but not in the argument section
Fresenius USA v. Baxter International
582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 86 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that a party cannot preserve an argument if it presents "only a skeletal or undeveloped argument to the trial court"
Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price
485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 90 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that the objective considerations of nonobviousness presented, including substantial evidence of commercial success, praise, and long-felt need, were inadequate to overcome a strong showing of primary considerations that rendered the claims at issue invalid
In re Baxter Int'l, Inc.
698 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 3 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 2011–1073. 2012-10-26 In re BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Reexamination No. 90/007,751. William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for the appellant. With him on the petition were William G. McElwain, David L. Cavanaugh, Todd C. Zubler, Thomas G. Saunders and Heather M. Petruzzi, of Washington,
Application of Venner
262 F.2d 91 (C.C.P.A. 1958) Cited 6 timesPatent Appeal No. 6391. December 19, 1958. John H. Bruninga, St. Louis, Mo., and Richard G. Radue, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office affirming the final rejection by the examiner of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 13 and
In re Rundell
48 F.2d 958 (C.C.P.A. 1931) Cited 10 timesPatent Appeal No. 2710. April 29, 1931. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals. Application for patent by Rupert E. Rundell. From a decision rejecting certain claims, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Sydney I. Prescott, of New York City (George S. Hastings, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,133 times 479 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
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
Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board
37 C.F.R. § 41.50 Cited 34 times 30 Legal AnalysesRequiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing
Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings
37 C.F.R. § 1.550 Cited 32 times 2 Legal AnalysesDiscussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings