§

Ex Parte 6329636 et al

95000202 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)
Ex Parte 6329636 et al

6 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   169 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. In re Bigio

    381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 71 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Affirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"

  3. Western Union Co. v. Moneygram Payment

    626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 55 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the asserted dependent claims, which "add[ed] only trivial improvements that would have been a matter of common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art," were obvious as a matter of law

  4. In re Klein

    647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2010-1411. June 6, 2011. Louis W. Tompros, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Larissa B. Park and Katherine B. Dirks. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitor. Before, NEWMAN, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges. SCHALL, Circuit Judge. Arnold

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   447 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 41.79 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.79   Cited 5 times

    (a) Parties to the appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: (1) The original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a) , (2) The original § 41.77(b) decision under the provisions of § 41.77(b)(2) , (3) The expiration of the time for the owner to take action under § 41.77(b)(2) , or (4) The new decision of the Board under § 41.77(f) . (b) (1) The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked