Ex Parte Liu et al

8 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"
Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 262 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis
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"
In re Gurley
27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 102 times 3 Legal Analyses
Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."
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 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 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

Ex Parte Liu et al

8 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 the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

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"

Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

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"

Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well