§

Ex Parte 6418752 et al

95001555 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)
Ex Parte 6418752 et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,568 times   187 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 Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  3. Randall Mfg. v. Rea

    733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 85 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of non-obviousness where court “narrowly focus[ed] on the four prior-art references” and ignored record evidence of “the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art” to explain motivation to combine or modify references

  4. 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"

  5. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  6. Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp.

    793 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    No. 2014–1808. 2015-07-17 AIRBUS S.A.S., Appellant v. FIREPASS CORPORATION, Appellee. Matthew Berkowitz , Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, N.Y., argued for appellant. Also represented by Walter E. Hanley, Jr. , Aloysius Antony Pfeffer. Eric Shumsky , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Andrew S. Ong , Menlo Park, CA; Robert M. Isackson , New York, N.Y. LOURIE Matthew Berkowitz, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, N.Y., argued for appellant. Also represented

  7. In re Natural Alternatives, LLC

    659 F. App'x 608 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   2 Legal Analyses

    2015-1911 08-31-2016 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC, Appellant STEVEN EDWARD TILLER, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston L.L.P., Baltimore, MD, argued for appellant. Also represented by GREGORY MILTON STONE. MARY L. KELLY, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER, AMY J. NELSON. O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge. NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United

  8. In re Deminski

    796 F.2d 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that if a prior art reference discloses essentially the same structure and function as the invention, it is likely in the same field of endeavor

  9. Application of Ellis

    476 F.2d 1370 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8860. April 26, 1973. Francis D. Thomas, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and WATSON, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals,

  10. 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

  11. Section 1.937 - Conduct of inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.937   Cited 4 times

    (a) All inter partes reexamination proceedings, including any appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, will be conducted with special dispatch within the Office, unless the Director makes a determination that there is good cause for suspending the reexamination proceeding. (b) The inter partes reexamination proceeding will be conducted in accordance with §§ 1.104 through 1.116 , the sections governing the application examination process, and will result in the issuance of an inter partes reexamination

  12. Section 41.67 - Appellant's brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.67   Cited 2 times

    (a) (1) Appellant(s) may once, within time limits for filing set forth in § 41.66 , file a brief and serve the brief on all other parties to the proceeding in accordance with § 1.903 of this title. (2) The brief must be signed by the appellant, or the appellant's duly authorized attorney or agent and must be accompanied by the requisite fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(2) . (b) An appellant's appeal shall stand dismissed upon failure of that appellant to file an appellant's brief, accompanied by the requisite