§

Ex Parte Bohlin et al

13916754 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2019)
Ex Parte Bohlin et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,570 times   188 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 382 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  3. Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm

    492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 154 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the invention not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have selected for further investigation

  4. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex

    550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding selection and undertaking of the arduous separation of a particular racemate could be judged obvious only with hindsight knowledge that a dextrorotatory enantiomer has certain desirable properties

  5. Dann v. Johnston

    425 U.S. 219 (1976)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding it obvious to combine the modern computer program described in the patent with "existing machine systems in the banking industry"

  6. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 84 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  7. Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC

    802 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 33 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion to amend as untimely and lacking good cause where defendants delayed seeking permission to supplemental invalidity contentions for one year after production of documents that should have led them to raise an on-sale bar argument.

  8. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  9. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    611 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 33 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in claim construction, "the specification to be consulted is that of the issued patent, not an earlier application"

  10. Merck Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories

    874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prior art's disclosure of a multitude of combinations failed to render any particular formulation less obvious

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  12. 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

  13. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)