10 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,574 times 189 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"
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee
136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) Cited 278 times 164 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable
Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg
849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 667 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard
In re Rijckaert
9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 22 times 4 Legal AnalysesNo. 93-1206. November 23, 1993. Edward W. Goodman, North American Philips Corp., of Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Algy Tamoshunas. Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the
In re Burhans
154 F.2d 690 (C.C.P.A. 1946) Cited 1 timesPatent Appeal No. 5128. April 1, 1946. Appeal from Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 401,968. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Merton E. Burhans for a patent for methods of making flour and bread and for an article of manufacture of genuine whole wheat flour. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the primary examiner in rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Decision affirmed. John
In re Gibson
39 F.2d 975 (C.C.P.A. 1930) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 2298. April 14, 1930. Appeal from Patent Office. In the matter of the patent application of William Gibson. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the Examiner denying all claims in the application, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Paul Carpenter, of New York City (J.T. Basseches, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,172 times 492 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 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 99 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