§

Ex Parte 7381804 et al

95000440 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)
Ex Parte 7381804 et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 370 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  2. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 250 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that inventor's unwitnessed notebook was not adequate corroborating evidence of an earlier invention date

  3. Ortho-McNeil v. Mylan Lab

    520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 178 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patented invention was not obvious where a POSA had no reason to select the exact route among several unpredictable alternatives

  4. Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm

    492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 152 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the invention not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have selected for further investigation

  5. Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs.

    720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 47 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that undue experimentation was required to practice the full scope of the claims where the specification "disclose[d] only a starting point for further iterative research in an unpredictable and poorly understood field"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 times   459 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."

  7. Section 301 - Citation of prior art and written statements

    35 U.S.C. § 301   Cited 117 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Referring to “the proper meaning of a patent claim in a proceeding that is ordered or instituted pursuant to section 304, 314, or 324 ”

  8. 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