§
Ex Parte Braedt

14 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,548 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 3,180 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Baxter International, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc.

    149 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 204 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work

  4. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 145 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  5. 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

  6. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 81 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  7. In re Haruna

    249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1283. DECIDED: April 18, 2001. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Schall, Circuit Judge. Andrew J. Patch, Young Thompson, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellants. Joseph G. Piccolo, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellee, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and

  8. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works

    150 U.S. 164 (1893)   Cited 23 times
    In Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164, 170, 14 S.Ct. 68, 70, 37 L.Ed. 1039 (1843), the Court held that the casting of a stone grate in one piece, which was formerly cast in two pieces, did not rise to the level of an invention.

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 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."

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,998 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. 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"

  12. 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

  13. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  14. Section 1.136 - 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)