§

Ex Parte 6452863 et al

95001124 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)
Ex Parte 6452863 et al

19 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. 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

  3. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 230 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  4. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 149 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  5. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG

    318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 160 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general statement introducing new limitations does not limit scope of claims not amended to include the new limitations

  6. 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"

  7. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 83 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  8. In re DBC

    545 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 62 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the plaintiffs waived their Appointments Clause challenge to two panel members of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals "by failing to raise it before the Board"

  9. Media Technologies Licensing v. Upper Deck

    596 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming a district court's summary judgment of obviousness for claims directed to a piece of memorabilia attached to a trading card

  10. In re Rambus Inc.

    2011-1247 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2012)

    2011-1247 08-15-2012 IN RE RAMBUS INC. J. MICHAEL JAKES, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. On the brief was KATHLEEN A. DALEY, of New York, New York. Of counsel on the brief were PAUL M. ANDERSON, Paul M. Anderson, PLLC. of Austin, Texas; and RICHARD G. TARANTO, Farr & Taranto, of Washington, DC; and PETER A. DETRE, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, of San Francisco, California; and FRED A. ROWLEY, JR. and JEFFREY Y. WU, Munger, Tolles & Olson

  11. 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,937 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  14. Section 303 - Determination of issue by Director

    35 U.S.C. § 303   Cited 122 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Governing ex parte reexamination

  15. 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

  16. Section 1.956 - Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.956   Cited 1 times

    The time for taking any action by a patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for such extension must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, but in no case will the mere filing of a request effect any extension. Any request for such extension must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g) . See § 1.304(a) for extensions of time for filing a