Ex Parte 6,775,873 B2 et al

32 Cited authorities

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"
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,879 times 167 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"
Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert
512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 304 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 283 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.
439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 281 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding arguments insufficiently developed in briefing are forfeited
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”
Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc.
311 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 107 times
Holding that the term "substantially constant wall thickness" was not impermissibly indefinite even though "[i]t may of course occur that persons experienced in a technologic field will have divergent opinions as to the meaning of a term"
TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc'ns Corp.
516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 82 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the a patent's reference to two "components" combined into a "stream" clearly evidenced the singular from of the word "stream"
In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.
367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 90 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter
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"
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,159 times 489 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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,023 times 1024 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 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"
Section 41.77 - Decisions and other actions by the Board
37 C.F.R. § 41.77 Cited 16 times 3 Legal Analyses
(a) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse each decision of the examiner on all issues raised on each appealed claim, or remand the reexamination proceeding to the examiner for further consideration. The reversal of the examiner's determination not to make a rejection proposed by the third party requester constitutes a decision adverse to the patentability of the claims which are subject to that proposed rejection which will be set forth in the decision of the Patent
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
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

Ex Parte 6,775,873 B2 et al

32 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”

Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

Holding arguments insufficiently developed in briefing are forfeited

Holding that the term "substantially constant wall thickness" was not impermissibly indefinite even though "[i]t may of course occur that persons experienced in a technologic field will have divergent opinions as to the meaning of a term"

Holding that the a patent's reference to two "components" combined into a "stream" clearly evidenced the singular from of the word "stream"

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

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"