Ex Parte Hannes et al

14 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,547 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"
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 280 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.
948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 332 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”
In re Kahn
441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 144 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight
In re Rouffet
149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 160 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that objective evidence of nonobviousness [secondary considerations] "includes copying, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, commercial success, unexpected results created by the claimed invention, unexpected properties of the claimed invention, licenses showing industry respect for the invention, and skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention"
In re Sang-Su Lee
277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 105 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that agency tribunals "must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action"
In re Oelrich
666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 92 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )
In re Fritch
972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 30 times
Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,363 times 1046 Legal Analyses
Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,997 times 1001 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
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"
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
Section 102 - Military departments
5 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 48 times
Defining "military department" to include the Department of the Air Force

Ex Parte Hannes et al

14 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

Holding that agency tribunals "must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action"

Stating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )

Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

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"

Defining "military department" to include the Department of the Air Force