§

Ex Parte 7666337 et al

95002171 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)
Ex Parte 7666337 et al

13 Cited authorities

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

    773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 152 times   26 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. J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co.

    106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 120 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the definition of "a term with no previous meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art . . . must be found somewhere in the patent"

  3. Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea

    726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 73 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding no reason to improve upon the prior art when it was not "recognized or disclosed" in the prior art

  4. In re Huang

    100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 94 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the inventor's opinion as to the purchaser's reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus

  5. Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.

    544 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming judgment as a matter of law of obviousness

  6. Orthopedic Equip. v. Orthopedic Appliances

    707 F.2d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 95 times
    Finding while claimed invention made it possible to decrease inventories, there was "no evidence of any previous, unsuccessful attempts to reduce inventories"

  7. Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp.

    714 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 61 times
    Holding claimed invention obvious where patent holder "failed to show that such commercial success . . . was due to anything disclosed in the patent in suit which was not readily available in the prior art"

  8. 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

  9. Application of Caveney

    386 F.2d 917 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7780. November 24, 1967. Petherbridge, O'Neill Aubel, Chicago, Ill. (Roy E. Petherbridge, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board

  10. Application of Gershon

    372 F.2d 535 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7722. February 16, 1967. Eben M. Graves, Allen G. Weise, New York City, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming final rejection

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 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."

  12. Section 103 - Traveling expenses

    3 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 1 times
    Relating to travel expenses of President

  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