KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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"

Superguide Corp. v. Directv Enterprises

Holding that a party "waived its right to assert a construction other than 'matches or equals' for the term 'meet'" because it agreed to that construction in its briefs

Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

In re Wands

Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

In re Paulsen

Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated

Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized

Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Holding that, where "patent disclosure list[ed] numerous salts, fuels, and emulsifiers that could form thousands of" claimed combinations, some of which would be inoperable, "the claims [were] not necessarily invalid" for lack of enablement unless a POSA needed to "experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed invention"

In re GPAC Inc.

In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

Sibia Neurosciences v. Cadus Pharm

Holding that motivation to modify a prior art reference may derive from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art

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

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."

Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Section 306 - Appeal

Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete

Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings

Section 41.52 - Rehearing