11 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,548 times 185 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent
639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 287 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding that it is "not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions" because such functions are "coextensive with the structure disclosed."
In re Gleave
560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 149 timesFinding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”
In re Bigio
381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 71 times 10 Legal AnalysesAffirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"
In re Rambus Inc.
694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 38 timesFinding support for a broad construction of a claim term by referencing claims in related patents in the patent family
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,130 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 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections
37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Cited 104 times 14 Legal AnalysesWhen any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the
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 41.37 - Appeal brief
37 C.F.R. § 41.37 Cited 32 times 25 Legal AnalysesRequiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well
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