§
Ex Parte Potter

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.

    724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 71 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Vacating in part and reversing in part the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant where the evidence pertaining to objective considerations raised genuine issues of material fact on the issue of obviousness

  3. Acco Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc.

    813 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 31 times
    Explaining that where an "ordinary artisan would ... be left with two design choices ... [e]ach of these two design choices is an obvious combination"

  4. In re Chu

    66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reference was properly considered prior art because the earlier filed application did not support the patent's claims, thereby precluding reliance on its earlier priority date

  5. In re Nouvel

    493 F. App'x 85 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    2011-1526 08-29-2012 IN RE CLAUDE NOUVEL CLEVENGER NOTE: This opinion is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Serial No. 11/785,758. BENJAMIN L. KIERSZ, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, of McLean, Virginia, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was JACK S. BARUFKA. JOSEPH G. PICCOLO, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia. With him

  6. In re Gal

    980 F.2d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that different structure to achieve different purpose was not an obvious design choice

  7. Application of Kuhle

    526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 75-602. December 4, 1975. Keith D. Beecher, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Joseph E. Nakamura, Sol., R.V. Lupo, Assoc. Sol., Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 of application serial No. 314,180, filed Dec. 11, 1972, for "Portable Moisture

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,143 times   481 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."

  9. 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"

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. Section 1.46 - Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter

    37 C.F.R. § 1.46   Cited 2 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. (b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph