§

Ex Parte Mizutani

10463632 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 14, 2009)
Ex Parte Mizutani

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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. Rowe v. Dror

    112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 230 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "balloon angioplasty catheter" in preamble to claim was structural limitation

  3. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 85 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"

  4. In re Clay

    966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 88 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a reference was not reasonably pertinent where a PHOSITA "would not reasonably have expected to solve the [relevant] problem ... by considering" that reference

  5. Application of Wood

    599 F.2d 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that reference in the patent's specification to a field of art encompassing the alleged prior art supported a finding that the alleged prior art was within the inventor's field of endeavor.

  6. Kropa v. Robie

    187 F.2d 150 (C.C.P.A. 1951)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preamble term "abrasive article" was "essential to point out the invention defined by the counts"

  7. In re Deminski

    796 F.2d 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that if a prior art reference discloses essentially the same structure and function as the invention, it is likely in the same field of endeavor

  8. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 29 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  9. In re Sovish

    769 F.2d 738 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    Appeal No. 85-781. July 26, 1985. James W. Geriak, Lyon Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellants. With him on brief were Roy L. Anderson and William E. Mouzavires, Lyon Lyon, Washington, D.C. Fred W. Sherling, Associate Solicitor, U.S. Patent Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, Circuit

  10. Meitzner v. Mindick

    549 F.2d 775 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 76-577. February 24, 1977. Rehearing Denied April 28, 1977. Eugene Sabol, Fisher, Christen Sabol, Washington, D.C., attys. of record, for appellants; George W.F. Simmons, Robert A. Doherty, Rohm Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. Herbert B. Keil, Michael P. Bucklo, Johnston, Keil, Thompson Shurtleff, Chicago, Ill., David B. Kellom, Bernd W. Sandt, Midland, Mich., attys. of record, for appellees. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)