§

Dow Global Technologies LLC

2020006222 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2021)
Dow Global Technologies LLC

9 Cited authorities

  1. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.

    339 U.S. 605 (1950)   Cited 1,524 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

  2. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

    805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 115 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a declaration appended to a reply brief "fairly respond[ed] only to arguments made in ... [the patent owner]'s response," as required by § 42.23(b), and that the patent owner had "a meaningful opportunity to respond," as required by the APA

  3. In re Gordon

    733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a modification which renders the invention inoperable for its intended purpose is not obvious because it teaches away from the invention

  4. In re Ruff

    256 F.2d 590 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 19 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6357. June 24, 1958. Brumbaugh, Free, Graves Donohue, New York City (Eben M. Graves and John R. Janes, New York City, of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J. Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. C. Willard Hayes, Washington, D.C., William J. Barnes, New York City, Neal A. Waldrop, Detroit, Mich., Leland L. Chapman, Cleveland, Ohio (Paul L. Tillson, Pittsburgh, Pa., John D. Upham and Frederick C. Wellington, Dayton, Ohio

  5. In re Christensen

    82 F.2d 715 (C.C.P.A. 1936)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3437. April 6, 1936. Rehearing Denied April 27, 1936. Appeal from Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 545,078. Application for patent by Niels Christensen. A decision by the Primary Examiner rejecting all the claims of the application was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, and the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Harold T. Stowell, of Washington, D.C. (Joseph R. Mares, of St. Louis, Mo., of counsel), for appellant. R.F. Whitehead, of Washington, D.C

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 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."

  7. 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"

  8. 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

  9. 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