12 Cited authorities
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
573 U.S. 208 (2014) Cited 1,441 times 521 Legal AnalysesHolding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,568 times 187 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"
Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 831 times 160 Legal AnalysesHolding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
In re O'Farrell
853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 168 times 9 Legal AnalysesFinding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"
In re Stepan Co.
660 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 14 timesNo. 2010–1261.Reexamination Nos. 90/006,824 90/007,619. 2011-10-5 In re STEPAN COMPANY. Thomas J. Wimbiscus, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were George Wheeler, and Dennis H. Jaskoviak, Jr. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were, Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Janet A. Gongola, Associate Solicitor. PROST Thomas J. Wimbiscus
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,409 times 1060 Legal AnalysesRequiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,159 times 489 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 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,530 times 2294 Legal AnalysesDefining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
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 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 41.37 - Appeal brief
37 C.F.R. § 41.37 Cited 32 times 25 Legal AnalysesRequiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well