§

Ex Parte Kite et al

10313844 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2009)
Ex Parte Kite et al

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  3. Application of Best

    562 F.2d 1252 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 18 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 77-509. October 13, 1977. Richard G. Miller, New York City, attorney of record, for appellants, James C. Arvantes, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, C.J., RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, JJ., and FORD, J., United States Customs Court. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark

  4. In re Dillon

    892 F.2d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    No. 88-1245. December 29, 1989. James H. Laughlin, Jr., Benoit, Smith Laughlin, Arlington, Va., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory F. Wirzbicki, Unocal Corp., Brea, Cal., of counsel. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Richard E. Schafer, Associate Sol. and Joseph F. Nakamura. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before NEWMAN and ARCHER, Circuit Judges, and COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge

  5. Application of Garnero

    412 F.2d 276 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "interbonded one to another by interfusion" connotes structure to a claimed composite and should therefore be considered in the determination of patentability