§

Ex Parte 5623600 et al

90011022 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 2012)
Ex Parte 5623600 et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,572 times   188 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. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.

    908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendment made as of right under MPEP weighs against an inference of intent to deceive

  3. In re Klopfenstein

    380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 78 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether a reference is publicly accessible is based on the “facts and circumstances surrounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public”

  4. In re Cronyn

    890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 66 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a thesis presentation made to a handful of faculty and not catalogued or indexed in a "meaningful" way was not a printed publication

  5. IN RE WYER

    655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 61 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding laid-open Australian patent was a printed publication where microfilm copy was available to the public at patent office and abstract was published

  6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. AB Fortia

    774 F.2d 1104 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 42 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding paper distributed at conference publicly accessible without considering indexing

  7. Application of Bayer

    568 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a thesis housed, but neither shelved nor catalogued, within a university library was not publicly accessible

  8. 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1027 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. 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

  11. Section 306 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 306   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete

  12. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  13. Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.550   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings