§
Ex Parte Scott

20 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,565 times   187 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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,186 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University

    212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 381 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”

  4. Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 338 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim term "relatively small" is not indefinite

  5. Festo C. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki

    234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 202 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecution history estoppel applies to voluntary amendments and noting that "[t]here is no reason why prosecution history estoppel should arise if the Patent Office rejects a claim because it believes the claim to be unpatentable, but not arise if the applicant amends a claim because he believes the claim to be unpatentable"

  6. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  7. New Railhead Mfg. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.

    298 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 73 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that performance of the claimed method of drilling in rock at a commercial jobsite under public land, hidden from view, constituted public use

  8. Zenon Env. v. U.S. Filter

    506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 56 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the language "[f]urther details relating to the construction and deployment of a most preferred skein are found in [prior art patents], the relevant disclosures of each of which are included by reference" "expressly limit[ed] the incorporation to only relevant disclosures of the patents, indicating that the disclosures are not being incorporated in their entirety"

  9. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co.

    242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 66 times
    Finding that preamble term limited claim because the term was used in the specification as well as in all of the claims

  10. Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Shell Oil Co.

    112 F.3d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 45 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Considering the validity of a claim alleged to have been "implicitly dropped" because "[t]he record does not reveal, nor does the district court offer, any valid reason for declining to consider" it

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,406 times   1058 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,157 times   488 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,022 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 604 times   116 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  15. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 271 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  16. 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"

  17. 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

  18. 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)