§

Asako Minamide et al.

2020003110 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)
Asako Minamide et al.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 382 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  2. In re Huai-Hung Kao

    639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 88 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "food effect" was obvious because the effect was an inherent property of the composition

  3. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  4. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC

    683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 50 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding entry of Rule 54(b) judgment proper with respect to Cadbury commercial products but not Cadbury experimental products

  5. Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.

    544 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming judgment as a matter of law of obviousness

  6. 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

  7. In re Mayne

    104 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 38 times
    Finding a claimed enterokinase recognition sequence containing the amino acid sequence Phe–Pro–Leu was merely “an obvious functional equivalent” to prior art sequences that included arrangements of Phe–Pro–Ile and Leu–Pro–Leu

  8. In re Stepan Co.

    868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses

    2016-1811 08-25-2017 IN RE: STEPAN COMPANY, Appellant Thomas J. Wimbiscus, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by George Wheeler. Jeremiah Helm, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Frances Lynch. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Moore. Thomas J. Wimbiscus , McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL,

  9. Merck Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories

    874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prior art's disclosure of a multitude of combinations failed to render any particular formulation less obvious

  10. In re Inland Steel Co.

    265 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding commercial success inadequate to rebut invalidity where there was a strong prima facie case of obviousness

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,169 times   492 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 188 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 1.136 - [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)