§

Franklin, Linda R.

13930014 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2020)
Franklin, Linda R.

18 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,558 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 Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 148 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  3. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.

    464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 137 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding based on the record that "[t]he presence of certain secondary considerations of nonobviousness are insufficient as a matter of law to overcome our conclusion that the evidence only supports a legal conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious"

  4. In re Beattie

    974 F.2d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 62 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an alternative to a well-entrenched theory does not preclude a finding of obviousness because the recommendation of a new system "does not require obliteration of another"

  5. In re Cree, Inc.

    818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "self-serving statements from researchers about their own work do not have the same reliability"

  6. Inline Plastics Corp. v. Easypak, LLC

    799 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1305. 2015-08-27 INLINE PLASTICS CORP., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. EASYPAK, LLC, Defendant–Appellee. Adam Phillip Samansky, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Peter Cuomo; Barry Kramer, David John Silvia, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, Stamford, CT. Craig M. Scott, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Providence, RI, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Christine K. Bush; Anastasia Andreyevna Dubrovsky, Scott

  7. In re Berg

    320 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 02-1120, 02-1160. DECIDED: February 20, 2003. Richard Aron Osman, Science Technology Law Group, of Hillsborough, CA, argued for appellant. Kristin L. Yohannan, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor. Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit Judge. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Appellants Richard A.

  8. In re Mraz

    455 F.2d 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times
    Explaining that features that patent drawings "show clearly" can be sufficient to establish anticipation, especially when they are the focus of the figure and shown "with great particularity," but distinguishing a case where the patent drawing at issue was "obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything"

  9. Application of Aslanian

    590 F.2d 911 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that in determining obviousness, all references are assessed "on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art" (quoting In re Baum , 374 F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967) )

  10. In re Meng

    492 F.2d 843 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 9169. March 7, 1974. Herman J. Gordon, William S. Feiler, Chicago, Ill. (Dressler, Goldsmith, Clement Gordon, Chicago, Ill.), attorneys of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent 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 Board of Appeals, affirming

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,393 times   1049 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 6,148 times   481 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 6,016 times   1014 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and