§
BFKW, LLC

19 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,574 times   189 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 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.

    340 U.S. 147 (1950)   Cited 982 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding obvious a combination of old elements which perform the same function in combination and individually

  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Ben Venue Labs

    246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 279 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding preamble language non-limiting in method of treatment claims containing two steps, the second of which was administering a compound

  5. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation

    301 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 141 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preamble was limiting in light of arguments made during prosecution "show[ing] a clear reliance by the patentee on the preamble to persuade the Patent Office that the claimed invention is not anticipated by the prior art"

  6. 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"

  7. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research

    346 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that to serve as an anticipating reference, the reference must enable that which it is alleged to anticipate

  8. 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"

  9. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  10. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research

    304 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1467. DECIDED: August 30, 2002. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, William H. Alsup, J. Lynn H. Pasahow, Fenwick West LLP, of Palo Alto, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel on the brief were Beth H. Parker, Mary T. Huser, and S. Christian Platt, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen, LLP, of Palo Alto, California. Of counsel was Thomas S. Hixson, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen, LLP, of San Francisco, California. Robert E. Hillman

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,171 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 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 624 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  13. 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"

  14. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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 - [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)

  17. 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