§

Slivka et al. V. Hedman

10230671 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2010)
Slivka et al. V. Hedman

22 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. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 264 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

  3. Pharmastem v. Viacell

    491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 202 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "none of [the activities governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)] refer to the provision of a service."

  4. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 84 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  5. Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n. of Sec. Dealers

    336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 85 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "whereby" clause in method for trading securities did not constitute a claim limitation

  6. Mycogen Plant Science v. Monsanto Co.

    243 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 89 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was sufficient appreciation when an inventor recognized a process in terms of codons — groups of three nucleotides-instead of the ultimately claimed nucleotides

  7. Griffin v. Bertina

    285 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 44 times
    Holding as limiting a method claim's preamble reciting “diagnosing an increased risk for thrombosis,” where claim covering nucleic-acid tests performed on a “test subject” was meaningless without understanding that “[d]iagnosis is ... the essence of invention”

  8. Yorkey v. Diab

    601 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 29 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board is "well within its discretion" to give more or less credibility to expert testimony unless "no reasonable trier of fact could have done so"

  9. Scott v. Finney

    34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 51 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Addressing reduction to practice in the priority context

  10. Süd-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc.

    554 F.3d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Affirming finding that reference disclosed "uncoated" film where it did not describe the film as coated and did not suggest necessity of coatings

  11. 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."

  12. 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"

  13. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences