§

Ex Parte 7,220,018 B2 et al

90011864 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)
Ex Parte 7,220,018 B2 et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,551 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. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.

    340 U.S. 147 (1950)   Cited 982 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding obvious a combination of old elements which perform the same function in combination and individually

  3. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 86 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  4. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  5. Ex Parte Jones

    39 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    No. 09-00-447 CR Submitted on February 8, 2001 Opinion Delivered March 14, 2001 Rehearing Overruled April 5, 2001 On Appeal from the 88th District Court, Hardin County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 14863 Thomas O. Moses, Beaumont, for appellant. Charles R. Roach, District Attorney, Kountze, for the State. Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM Bridget Jones, formerly know as Bridget Parks, appeals the trial court's denial of her application for writ of habeas corpus and motion

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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."

  7. Section 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 305   Cited 175 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"

  8. Section 303 - Determination of issue by Director

    35 U.S.C. § 303   Cited 123 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Governing ex parte reexamination

  9. 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

  10. Section 1.111 - Reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action

    37 C.F.R. § 1.111   Cited 86 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Regarding Application No. 15/892, 603

  11. Section 1.510 - Request for ex parte reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.510   Cited 29 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Providing that where ex parte reexamination request does not meet requirements, requester is "generally...given an opportunity to complete the request within a specified time"

  12. Section 1.515 - Determination of the request for ex parte reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.515   Cited 11 times

    (a) Within three months following the filing date of a request for an ex parte reexamination, an examiner will consider the request and determine whether or not a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request and the prior art cited therein, with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications. A statement and any accompanying information submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) will not be considered by the examiner when making

  13. Section 1.81 - Drawings required in patent application

    37 C.F.R. § 1.81   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. Since corrections are the responsibility of the applicant, the original drawing(s) should be retained by the applicant for any necessary future correction. (b) Drawings may include illustrations which facilitate an understanding of the invention (for example, flow sheets in cases of processes, and diagrammatic views). (c) Whenever the