§

Ex Parte Prochiantz et al

12812139 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)
Ex Parte Prochiantz et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp.

    150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 196 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding award of damages for breach of contract was properly based on licensing fee established by expert testimony

  2. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex

    550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 107 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding selection and undertaking of the arduous separation of a particular racemate could be judged obvious only with hindsight knowledge that a dextrorotatory enantiomer has certain desirable properties

  3. 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"

  4. Therasense v. Becton

    593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 67 times
    Concluding that "[t]he erroneous jury instruction on the law of anticipation" did not upend a verdict of invalidity based on " 'anticipation or obviousness' " because the jury could have found the patents obvious

  5. Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc.

    701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 59 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “prior consideration of a reference during prosecution may carry some weight” even when accused infringer does not bear a heightened burden on validity

  6. 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."

  7. Merck Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories

    874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prior art's disclosure of a multitude of combinations failed to render any particular formulation less obvious

  8. Ex Parte Boykin

    568 So. 2d 1243 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times

    Civ. 7710. September 12, 1990. Robert J. Mullican of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes Reeves, Mobile, for appellant. Herndon Inge, Jr. of Inge, McMillan, Adams, Coley Ledyard, Mobile, for appellee. INGRAM, Presiding Judge. This case concerns an original petition for a writ of mandamus requesting this court to order the Circuit Court of Mobile County to dissolve a prejudgment attachment. Richard A. Boykin (husband) contends that pursuant to Rule 64 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 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."

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,005 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. 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"

  12. Section 1.136 - 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)