§

Ex Parte 6011040 et al

90013445 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2017)
Ex Parte 6011040 et al

36 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,157 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.

    381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,909 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims are not "presumed" to be restricted to the embodiments disclosed in the specification

  3. Liebel-Flarsheim Company v. Medrad, Inc.

    358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,304 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms are given the full breadth of their ordinary meaning unless a clear disavowal of scope is stated in the specification

  4. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 502 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  5. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 370 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  6. Crocs v. Int'l Trade Com'n

    598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 210 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Finding that International Trade Commission's "concentration on small differences in isolation distracted from the overall impression of the claimed ornamental features" and explaining that the "ordinary observer test applies to the patented design in its entirety"

  7. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

    463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 201 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

  8. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac

    344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 207 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "dependent claims are presumed to be of narrower scope than the independent claims from which they depend"

  9. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.

    464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 134 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding based on the record that "[t]he presence of certain secondary considerations of nonobviousness are insufficient as a matter of law to overcome our conclusion that the evidence only supports a legal conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious"

  10. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 164 times   2 Legal Analyses
    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."

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   453 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,941 times   957 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)

  15. Section 1.565 - Concurrent office proceedings which include an ex parte reexamination proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 1.565   Cited 11 times
    Stating that a merged reissue/reexamination proceeding will follow the rules for a reissue patent application (e.g., 37 C.F.R. 171 through 1.179)