§

Ex Parte 7272021 et al

95001637 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)
Ex Parte 7272021 et al

9 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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,185 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Eibel Co. v. Paper Co.

    261 U.S. 45 (1923)   Cited 520 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the oral testimony of prior public use "falls short of being enough to overcome the presumption of novelty from the granting of the patent" when "there is not a single written record, letter or specification of prior date to [the patentee's] application that discloses any such discovery by anyone. . . ."

  4. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.

    810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that §§ 103 and 102 use the same definition of prior art

  5. The Barbed Wire Patent

    143 U.S. 275 (1892)   Cited 370 times
    Finding that the witnesses gave inconsistent and insufficient testimony as to the substance of the purported prior art public use

  6. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.

    185 U.S. 403 (1902)   Cited 224 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "any description which is sufficient to ... serve as a warning to others of what the patent claims as a monopoly, is sufficiently definite to sustain the patent"

  7. Loom Co. v. Higgins

    105 U.S. 580 (1881)   Cited 286 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Determining if patentee was the true inventor, and whether patent claim was sufficiently described in the specification

  8. 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,012 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"