§

Ex Parte 6,945,013 et al

95001452 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)
Ex Parte 6,945,013 et al

35 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. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,316 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  3. Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation

    402 U.S. 313 (1971)   Cited 2,239 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

  4. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 150 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[t]he claimed . . . parameters . . . [were] inherent properties of the obvious . . . formulation," and thus "[t]he reduced food effect was an inherent result of [a composition] even if it was previously not known in the prior art that a food effect existed"

  5. Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB

    892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[v]iewed individually, the specific examples of vexatious conduct recited by the district court [were] somewhat tenuous," but "when viewed together, we cannot say that the district court's finding of vexatious litigation was clearly erroneous"

  6. Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.

    569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding claimed method obvious where all but one limitation disclosed in single prior art reference, and the "advantages" of the additional limitation, pressure of "at least 50 psi," "were known"

  7. In re Antor Media Corp.

    689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 32 times   5 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

  8. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  9. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  10. In re Stepan Co.

    660 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 14 times

    No. 2010–1261.Reexamination Nos. 90/006,824 90/007,619. 2011-10-5 In re STEPAN COMPANY. Thomas J. Wimbiscus, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were George Wheeler, and Dennis H. Jaskoviak, Jr. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were, Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Janet A. Gongola, Associate Solicitor. PROST Thomas J. Wimbiscus

  11. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,508 times   562 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1060 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  13. 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."

  14. 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"

  15. Section 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    35 U.S.C. § 141   Cited 458 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Imposing no such requirement

  16. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 378 times   633 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  17. 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"

  18. Section 122 - Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications

    35 U.S.C. § 122   Cited 175 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Providing that with certain exceptions, "each application for a patent shall be published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title."

  19. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 128 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  20. Section 2 - Powers and duties

    35 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 115 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Patent Office to cover the expenses of "persons" other than federal employees attending programs on intellectual-property protection

  21. Section 1.14 - Patent applications preserved in confidence

    37 C.F.R. § 1.14   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a) . Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section. (1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section

  22. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. Section 178.1005 - Hydrogen peroxide solution

    21 C.F.R. § 178.1005   Cited 4 times

    Hydrogen peroxide solution identified in this section may be safely used to sterilize polymeric food-contact surfaces identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. (a)Identity. For the purpose of this section, hydrogen peroxide solution is an aqueous solution containing not more than 35 percent hydrogen peroxide (CAS Reg. No. 7722-84-1) by weight, meeting the specifications prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. (b)Optional adjuvant substances. Hydrogen peroxide solution identified in paragraph

  26. Section 41.81 - Action following decision

    37 C.F.R. § 41.81   Cited 2 times

    The parties to an appeal to the Board may not appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under § 1.983 of this title until all parties' rights to request rehearing have been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board. 37 C.F.R. §41.81

  27. Section 1.983 - Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.983   Cited 2 times

    (a) The patent owner or third party requester in an inter partes reexamination proceeding who is a party to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may, subject to § 41.81 , appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and may be a party to any appeal thereto taken from a reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (b) The appellant must take the following steps in such an appeal:

  28. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1

  29. Section 1.939 - Unauthorized papers in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.939   Cited 1 times

    (a) If an unauthorized paper is filed by any party at any time during the inter partes reexamination proceeding it will not be considered and may be returned. (b) Unless otherwise authorized, no paper shall be filed prior to the initial Office action on the merits of the inter partes reexamination. 37 C.F.R. §1.939 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7

  30. 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