§

Ex Parte 6434223 et al

90008051 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)
Ex Parte 6434223 et al

31 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,890 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

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

    358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,335 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. In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent

    639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 291 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions" because such functions are "coextensive with the structure disclosed."

  5. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 483 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

  6. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.

    279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 208 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]here an accused infringer is clearly practicing only that which was in the prior art, and nothing more, and the patentee's proffered construction reads on the accused device, meeting burden of [establishing invalidity] should not prove difficult"

  7. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 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."

  8. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing

    851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patentee bears the burden of proving a nexus between claimed secondary considerations and the merits of the patented invention

  9. Rhine v. Casio, Incorporated

    183 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Federal Circuit has "admonished against judicial rewriting of claims to preserve validity"

  10. Lucent Tech. v. Gateway

    525 F.3d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding courts "may construe claims to sustain their validity when the claims are amenable to more than one reasonable construction"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  13. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.550   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings