§

Ex Parte 7343220 et al

95000606 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2013)
Ex Parte 7343220 et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,574 times   189 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. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 178 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. Nutrition 21 v. U.S.

    930 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 207 times
    Holding that a seven-month delay in bringing suit was sufficient to negate irreparable harm

  4. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  5. Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.

    5 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 101 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that verdict of nonobviousness was not inconsistent with verdict of anticipation by prior public use, despite "legal homily" that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness

  6. Automated Merchandising Sys. v. Crane Co.

    357 F. App'x 297 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that the patentee bears the burden "to demonstrate that its potential losses cannot be compensated by monetary damages"

  7. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  8. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  9. In re Rodriguez

    24 B.R. 12 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    Bankruptcy No. 81-00293-BKC-JAG. Adv. No. 81-0501-BKC-JAG-A. June 9, 1982. Steven H. Friedman, Britton, Cohen, Kaufman, Benson Schantz, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff. William M. Manker, Miami, Fla., for debtor-defendant. Justin P. Havee, Miami, Fla., trustee. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS JOSEPH A. GASSEN, Bankruptcy Judge. This adversary complaint was filed by the trustee against the debtor, Jose A. Rodriguez, the debtor's wife and the debtor's closely held corporation, Arimar Construction, Inc. The trustee

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,171 times   492 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."

  11. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 554 times   900 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  12. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  13. Section 3 - Officers and employees

    35 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 50 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

  14. Section 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 52 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  15. 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

  16. Section 41.67 - Appellant's brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.67   Cited 2 times

    (a) (1) Appellant(s) may once, within time limits for filing set forth in § 41.66 , file a brief and serve the brief on all other parties to the proceeding in accordance with § 1.903 of this title. (2) The brief must be signed by the appellant, or the appellant's duly authorized attorney or agent and must be accompanied by the requisite fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(2) . (b) An appellant's appeal shall stand dismissed upon failure of that appellant to file an appellant's brief, accompanied by the requisite

  17. 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