§

Ex Parte 6931992 et al

90013280 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)
Ex Parte 6931992 et al

18 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. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,853 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  3. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 148 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  4. Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea

    726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 73 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding no reason to improve upon the prior art when it was not "recognized or disclosed" in the prior art

  5. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc.

    407 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 69 times
    Holding district court erred in not considering a reference that post-dates the priority date when it is relevant to what "was known in the art at the relevant time"

  6. Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC

    751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 17 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Suggesting courts have discretion to take judicial notice of patents

  7. 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"

  8. 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."

  9. In re Ideal Roofing Sheet Metal Works

    9 B.R. 2 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1980)   Cited 11 times

    Bankruptcy No. 80-00273-BKC-TCB. Adv. No. 80-0225-BKC-TCB-A. September 22, 1980. Louis A. Supraski, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff. Arnold Nevins, Miami Beach, Fla., for USFG. Stuart J. McGregor, Miami, Fla., for defendant. ORDER MODIFYING AUTOMATIC STAY THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge. Plaintiff-debtor has filed a complaint for relief from the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 seeking permission to proceed as plaintiff in a state court action against M. R. Harrison Construction Corporation

  10. Application of Ahlert

    424 F.2d 1088 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that applicants be given “the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the assertion or the notoriety or repute of the cited reference”

  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 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  14. Section 1.113 - Final rejection or action

    37 C.F.R. § 1.113   Cited 12 times   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) On the second or any subsequent examination or consideration by the examiner the rejection or other action may be made final, whereupon applicant's, or for ex parte reexaminations filed under § 1.510 , patent owner's reply is limited to appeal in the case of rejection of any claim (§ 41.31 of this title), or to amendment as specified in § 1.114 or § 1.116 . Petition may be taken to the Director in the case of objections or requirements not involved in the rejection of any claim (§ 1.181 ). Reply

  15. Section 41.30 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.30   1 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in § 41.2 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart unless otherwise clear from the context: Applicant means either the applicant in a national application for a patent or the applicant in an application for reissue of a patent. Evidence means something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact, except that for the purpose of this subpart Evidence does not include