10 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,523 times 180 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
In re Merck Co., Inc.
800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 70 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use
In re Keller
642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 43 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"
In re Sneed
710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 21 times 2 Legal AnalysesRejecting argument that a prior art reference should not be considered "because it deals with collapsible hose rather than flexible plastic pipe and teaches that rolling 600 feet of 4 inch, noncollapsible hose into a transportable bundle is virtually 'an insurmountable task'" because "it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."
Glass v. Betsey
3 U.S. 6 (1794) Cited 3 timesFEBRUARY TERM, 1794. For the Appellants, the case was briefly opened, upon the following principles. The question is of great importance; and extends to the whole judicial authority of the United States; for, if the admiralty has no jurisdiction, there can be no jurisdiction in any common law court. Nor is it material to distinguish the ownership of the vessel and cargo; since strangers, or aliens, in amity, are entitled equally with Americans to have their property protected by the laws. Vatt. B
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,063 times 459 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 134 Cited 98 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
Section 103, 104 - Omitted
2 U.S.C. § 103, 1042 U.S.C. § 103, 104 EDITORIAL NOTES CODIFICATIONSection 103, R.S. §62, authorized Secretary of Senate and Clerk of House to require disbursing officers subject to their authority to return analytical statements and receipts for expenditures and to communicate such returns annually to Congress. See sections 4108 and 5535 of this title.Section 104, R.S. §63, required that all expenditures of Senate and House be made up to end of each fiscal year and reported to Congress at beginning of each regular
Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board
37 C.F.R. § 41.50 Cited 34 times 30 Legal AnalysesRequiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing
Section 1.550 - Conduct of ex parte reexamination proceedings
37 C.F.R. § 1.550 Cited 32 times 2 Legal AnalysesDiscussing limited involvement of requester and third parties in re-examination proceedings