§

Ex Parte 6349291 et al

90012366 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)
Ex Parte 6349291 et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,557 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. KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.

    223 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 222 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the article "a" would only be limited to its singular meaning when the inventor evinced a clear intent to so limit it

  3. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  4. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.

    195 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 142 times
    Proceeding to determine whether differences between the two claims are patentably distinct after construing the claims

  5. Vehicular Technologies Corp. v. Titan Wheel International, Inc.

    212 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a fact issue is not in genuine dispute if a reasonable jury could only find in favor of the moving party

  6. Harari v. Lee

    656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 47 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Baldwin, however, does not set a hard and fast rule that 'a' always means one or more than one. Instead, we read the limitation in light of the claim and specification to discern its meaning."

  7. Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. United States

    702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 82 times
    Addressing obviousness

  8. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  9. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 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"

  10. In re Sneed

    710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that a prior art reference should not be considered "because it deals with collapsible hose rather than flexible plastic pipe and teaches that rolling 600 feet of 4 inch, noncollapsible hose into a transportable bundle is virtually 'an insurmountable task'" because "it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,143 times   481 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 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  15. Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.550   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings