§

Ex Parte 7279451 et al

95000576 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)
Ex Parte 7279451 et al

15 Cited authorities

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

    773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 149 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"

  2. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 176 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  3. PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries Corp.

    156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 204 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, for a claim reciting glass "consisting essentially of" certain materials, the district court properly "left it to the jury to determine whether the amounts of [an unclaimed ingredient had] a material effect on the basic and novel characteristics of the glass"

  4. In re Kubin

    561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 137 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

  5. In re Huai-Hung Kao

    639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 88 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "food effect" was obvious because the effect was an inherent property of the composition

  6. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 68 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[d]ue to breaks in the chain of priority," the "[parent] patent [was] prior art for some of the asserted claims"

  7. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 61 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding no clear error in district court's fact finding that "entecavir's ‘effectiveness against hepatitis B without known toxicity issues’ was ‘not unexpected ,’ " and deferring to district court's finding that this was not sufficient evidence of nonobviousness

  8. In re Oelrich

    666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 93 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )

  9. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    769 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1306. 2014-10-20 BRISTOL–MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant–Appellee. William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the petition were Lauren B. Fletcher and Andrew J. Danford, of Boston, MA, and Amy K. Wigmore and Thomas G. Saunders, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the petition were Paul H. Berghoff, Alison J. Baldwin

  10. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 29 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,154 times   485 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 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)

  13. 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