§
Ex Parte Zimmer

25 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,181 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 395 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  4. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs

    806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that the limitation that the claimed wheelchair have a "front leg portion . . . so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats thereof" was not indefinite

  5. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  6. 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

  7. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 106 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

  8. General Foods v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle

    972 F.2d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one claim is "patentably distinct" from another if the differences between them are such that the subject matter of one would not have been obvious over the subject matter of the other

  9. In re Braat

    937 F.2d 589 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that while " better characterization of the relationship between the inventions is as combination/subcombination," the reasoning of Borah is applicable

  10. In re Haruna

    249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1283. DECIDED: April 18, 2001. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Schall, Circuit Judge. Andrew J. Patch, Young Thompson, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellants. Joseph G. Piccolo, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellee, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,370 times   1046 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 6,133 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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)