§

Ex Parte 6,493,377 B2 et al

90013418 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)
Ex Parte 6,493,377 B2 et al

9 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 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

  3. 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"

  4. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc.

    935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 148 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a party who chooses not to cross-examine a witness on an issue cannot later "recoup for its failed litigation strategy"

  5. 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"

  6. In re Antor Media Corp.

    689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1465. Reexamination Nos. 90/007,839 90/007,936 90/007,942 90/007,957 90/009,261. 2012-07-27 In re ANTOR MEDIA CORPORATION. Thomas A. Lewry, Brooks Kushman, P.C., of Southfield, Michigan, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Cunningham. William Lamarca, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitor. LOURIE

  7. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  8. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  9. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence