§

Ex Parte Sharp et al

13028810 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2018)
Ex Parte Sharp et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 433 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that commercial success is not significantly probative of non-obviousness where others are barred from acting on the prior art

  2. In re Skvorecz

    580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times
    Finding that the phrase "at the separation" "d[id] not require further antecedent basis" because "a person skilled in the field of the invention would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the specification"

  3. Univ. of Md. Biotechnology Inst. v. Presens Precision Sensing GMBH

    2016-2745 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2017)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2016-2745 2017-1057 11-03-2017 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, Appellant v. PRESENS PRECISION SENSING GMBH, Cross-Appellant RENE A. VAZQUEZ, Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC, Leesburg, VA, argued for appellant. MICHAEL STEVEN CULVER, Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan PC, Arlington, VA, argued for cross-appellant. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/000

  4. In re Gordon

    733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a modification which renders the invention inoperable for its intended purpose is not obvious because it teaches away from the invention

  5. Application of Ratti

    270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6452. September 30, 1959. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Raymond L. Greist, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to the

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."

  7. 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"

  8. 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