§

Ex Parte 6202395 et al

90013868 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)
Ex Parte 6202395 et al

6 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 254 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  3. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  4. Gramm v. Deere & Co.

    2017-1252 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    2017-1252 2017-1253 02-13-2018 RICHARD GRAMM, Appellant v. DEERE & COMPANY, Appellee JOHN COTTER, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellant. Also represented by GLENNA GILBERT, KATHERINE E. MULLER, THOMAS J. OPPOLD, DAVID P. SWENSON. GARY M. ROPSKI, Brinks Gilson & Lione, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by JAFON FEARSON, JOSHUA JAMES, LAURA A. LYDIGSEN, JEFFRY M. NICHOLS. PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeals from the United

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,065 times   462 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."

  6. 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