§

Ex Parte 7534584 et al

95001294 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)
Ex Parte 7534584 et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

    463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 203 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

  2. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 131 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding presumed fact findings based on substantial evidence

  3. Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Manufacturing Michigan Inc.

    192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 112 times
    Holding that regardless of whether defendant had shown a motivation to combine the prior art, the showing could be rebutted by evidence of commercial success

  4. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  5. Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle

    119 F.3d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "violent explosions" that render manufacturing "unsafe" support such an argument

  6. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

    838 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 13 times

    2015–1853 09-22-2016 ClassCo, Inc., Appellant v. Apple, Inc., Appellee David M. Quinlan, David M. Quinlan, P.C., Princeton, NJ, argued for appellant. Brian Robert Matsui, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David Lee Fehrman, Mehran Arjomand, Los Angeles, CA. Stoll, Circuit Judge. David M. Quinlan , David M. Quinlan, P.C., Princeton, NJ, argued for appellant. Brian Robert Matsui , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented

  7. In re Sullivan

    498 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Submitting evidence describing "an unexpected property or result from the use" of the claimed invention, a composition claim for an antivenom, in arguing to PTO that invention was nonobvious

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."

  9. Section 41.77 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.77   Cited 16 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse each decision of the examiner on all issues raised on each appealed claim, or remand the reexamination proceeding to the examiner for further consideration. The reversal of the examiner's determination not to make a rejection proposed by the third party requester constitutes a decision adverse to the patentability of the claims which are subject to that proposed rejection which will be set forth in the decision of the Patent

  10. Section 41.79 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.79   Cited 5 times

    (a) Parties to the appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: (1) The original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a) , (2) The original § 41.77(b) decision under the provisions of § 41.77(b)(2) , (3) The expiration of the time for the owner to take action under § 41.77(b)(2) , or (4) The new decision of the Board under § 41.77(f) . (b) (1) The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked