§

Ex Parte Shen et al

10621999 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)
Ex Parte Shen et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,551 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. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  3. In re Bogese

    303 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 44 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Section 2(b) empowers the USPTO to "set reasonable deadlines and requirements for the prosecution of applications"

  4. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  5. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  6. In re King

    801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure

  7. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  8. In re Reuter

    670 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 80-604. June 18, 1981. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Thomas E. Lynch, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Frederick A. Zoda, Trenton, N.J., atty., for appellants. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") which affirmed the examiner's rejections of claims

  9. Application of Craig

    411 F.2d 1333 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 15 times
    Relying on the "well settled principle that statutes granting tax exemptions or deferments must be strictly construed"

  10. Application of Borkowski

    505 F.2d 713 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-564. November 27, 1974. Rehearing Denied January 23, 1975. Barry A. Bisson, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  11. 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."

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  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 1.135 - Abandonment for failure to reply within time period

    37 C.F.R. § 1.135   Cited 12 times

    (a) If an applicant of a patent application fails to reply within the time period provided under § 1.134 and § 1.136 , the application will become abandoned unless an Office action indicates otherwise. (b) Prosecution of an application to save it from abandonment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must include such complete and proper reply as the condition of the application may require. The admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment after final rejection or any amendment not responsive