§

Ex Parte Mantelle et al

12981154 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)
Ex Parte Mantelle et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 174 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  2. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 149 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  3. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.

    432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prior-art reference anticipated claims 1-4 and 7, but not claims 8, 9, and 13, because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation

  4. Winner Intern. Royalty Corp. v. Wang

    202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that "the admission of live testimony on all matters before the Board in a section 146 action, as in this case, makes a factfinder of the district court and requires a de novo trial"

  5. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC

    683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding entry of Rule 54(b) judgment proper with respect to Cadbury commercial products but not Cadbury experimental products

  6. In re Antor Media Corp.

    689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1465. Reexamination Nos. 90/007,839 90/007,936 90/007,942 90/007,957 90/009,261. 2012-07-27 In re ANTOR MEDIA CORPORATION. Thomas A. Lewry, Brooks Kushman, P.C., of Southfield, Michigan, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Cunningham. William Lamarca, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitor. LOURIE

  7. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  8. In re Baird

    16 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that obviousness had not been shown based on a single reference because the PTO had not demonstrated motivation to select claimed species from prior genus of millions of compounds

  9. In re Young

    927 F.2d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 17 times
    Observing that in an obviousness inquiry, courts consider a prior art "reference for what it disclose in relation to the claimed invention."

  10. Application of Lindner

    457 F.2d 506 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times
    Involving dispersant compositions designed to emulsify solutions such as insecticide

  11. 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."

  12. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,942 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  13. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing