§
Ex Parte Gjerde

10 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. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

    256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 672 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

  3. C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos

    702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 30 times
    Finding preambles limiting because "'containers' as recited in the claim body depend on 'a plurality of containers' in the preamble as an antecedent basis"

  4. In re Johnston

    435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that many factors are relevant to the motivation to combine aspect of the obviousness inquiry, including the extent to which the references are in the same or related fields of technology

  5. In re Sound Emporium, Inc.

    48 B.R. 1 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1984)   Cited 23 times
    In Sound Emporium, the creditor filed its proof of claim within the statutory period and asserted that no offsets were available. Later it learned that funds it held were available for setoff, and it amended its proof of claim to reflect a setoff.

  6. In re Gennaro

    12 B.R. 4 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1981)   Cited 9 times

    Bankruptcy No. 80-455. Adv. No. 80-381. March 30, 1981. Gary P. Nelson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff Household Finance. James J. Conlin, Latrobe, Pa., for defendants Anthony J. Carolann Gennaro. MEMORANDUM OPINION JOSEPH L. COSETTI, Bankruptcy Judge. FACTS On April 1, 1980 the debtors filed a voluntary joint petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On May 22, 1980 Household Finance Consumer Discount Company (hereafter "Household Finance") filed a Complaint to Have a Debt Declared NonDischargeable;

  7. 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."

  8. Rule 30 - Appendix to the Briefs

    Fed. R. App. P. 30   Cited 248 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Mandating that the appellant's appendix contain " the relevant docket entries in the proceeding below; (B) the relevant portions of the . . . opinion; (C) the judgment, order, or decision in question"

  9. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  10. 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