§

Ex Parte 8118950 et al

95002150 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2015)
Ex Parte 8118950 et al

24 Cited authorities

  1. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.

    737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 67 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding where the claimed value fell within prior art range, burden of production switched to the party opposing the obviousness challenge, while burden of proof remanded with challenger

  2. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp.

    441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 85 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding 0.001 to 1.0 percent range did not disclose a D.I to 5.0 percent range

  3. In re Soni

    54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 89 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "substantially improved results" to overcome obviousness when the 50-fold improvement in tensile strength was much greater than would have been predicted

  4. Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.

    668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while the disclosure of a broad genus does not disclose every species within that genus, where there is "no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range" the disclosure of the range in the prior art discloses the value within the range

  5. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 94 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  6. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any overlap between a claimed range and one in the prior art is sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness, even if insufficient to render it unpatentable

  7. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 52 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming an obviousness determination where the patentee was confronted with a limited number of options for modifying a prior art pharmaceutical composition

  8. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  9. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  10. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 80 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,056 times   449 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 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    35 U.S.C. § 141   Cited 454 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Imposing no such requirement

  13. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 397 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  15. 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

  16. Section 41.81 - Action following decision

    37 C.F.R. § 41.81   Cited 2 times

    The parties to an appeal to the Board may not appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under § 1.983 of this title until all parties' rights to request rehearing have been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board. 37 C.F.R. §41.81

  17. Section 1.983 - Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.983   Cited 2 times

    (a) The patent owner or third party requester in an inter partes reexamination proceeding who is a party to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may, subject to § 41.81 , appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and may be a party to any appeal thereto taken from a reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (b) The appellant must take the following steps in such an appeal: