§

Ex Parte Banholzer et al

10976688 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)
Ex Parte Banholzer et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  2. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 370 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  3. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 106 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

  4. General Foods v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle

    972 F.2d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one claim is "patentably distinct" from another if the differences between them are such that the subject matter of one would not have been obvious over the subject matter of the other

  5. Application of Vogel

    422 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a rejection of a claim in a later patent covering a method for packaging meat as obviousness-type double patenting in light of claims in an earlier patent covering a method for packaging pork

  6. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[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"

  7. In re Braat

    937 F.2d 589 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that while " better characterization of the relationship between the inventions is as combination/subcombination," the reasoning of Borah is applicable

  8. Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. North Petrochem

    784 F.2d 351 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 25 times
    In Studiengesellschaft, moreover, there was no question that the patentee's claims were consonant with those not elected in responding to the restriction requirement.

  9. In re Durden

    763 F.2d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 20 times
    In Durden, however, the PTO examiner denied the appellants' claim directed toward the process of making the novel compounds.

  10. In re Ochiai

    71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-1446. December 11, 1995. Harold C. Wegner, Foley Lardner, of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Herbert I. Cantor and Douglas P. Mueller. Of counsel was Don J. Pelto. Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, Lee E. Barrett, Associate Solicitor, John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor and Richard E. Schafer, Associate Solicitor

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,056 times   448 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 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)