Ex Parte Klocke et al

15 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,557 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"
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,853 times 167 Legal Analyses
Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.
425 U.S. 273 (1976) Cited 237 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a combination is obvious if a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields predictable results
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.
349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 78 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding no material misrepresentation in part because a PTO examiner's reasons for allowance did not reflect that the PTO relied on the allegedly false applicant statements
In re Skvorecz
580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 50 times
Finding that the phrase "at the separation" "d[id] not require further antecedent basis" because "a person skilled in the field of the invention would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the specification"
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"
In re Morris
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 49 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness
In re Trans Texas
498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Patent Office is not bound by district court claim construction because Patent Office was not a party to the district court proceeding
In re Zletz
893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 42 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2
Application of Angstadt
537 F.2d 498 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 33 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that patent applicants are not required to enable every species encompassed by their claims
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,012 times 1009 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

Ex Parte Klocke et al

15 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 a combination is obvious if a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields predictable results

Finding no material misrepresentation in part because a PTO examiner's reasons for allowance did not reflect that the PTO relied on the allegedly false applicant statements

Finding that the phrase "at the separation" "d[id] not require further antecedent basis" because "a person skilled in the field of the invention would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the specification"

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"

Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

Holding that the Patent Office is not bound by district court claim construction because Patent Office was not a party to the district court proceeding

Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

Holding that patent applicants are not required to enable every species encompassed by their claims

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"