§

Ex Parte Bostrom et al

11884900 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)
Ex Parte Bostrom et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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 Kubin

    561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 130 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

  4. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.

    392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 132 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that licenses "may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record" (quoting In re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) )

  5. Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal

    872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 80 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Addressing whether the language of § 316(e), which all conceded applied to challenged claims, "applies equally to proposed substitute claims"

  6. Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea

    726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 72 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding no reason to improve upon the prior art when it was not "recognized or disclosed" in the prior art

  7. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG

    812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 35 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of secondary considerations must be examined to determine its impact on the first three Graham factors

  8. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  9. Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.

    642 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2010-1513. June 22, 2011. Appeal from the District of New Jersey, Stanley R. Chesler, J. Henry J. Renk, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper Scinto, of New York, NY, argued for the plaintiffs-appellants. Jeremy C. Lowe, Axinn, Veltrop Harkrider LLP, of Hartford, CN, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were James D. Veltrop and Francis H. Morrison, III. Of counsel were Thomas K. Hedemann and Jason T. Murata. Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Tyco

  10. Application of Nolan

    553 F.2d 1261 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the unexpected increase in luminosity of a gaseous discharge display and memory device was outweighed in significance by the expected increase in memory margin and lower operating voltage that would be produced by the applicant's obvious combination of gases

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 times   459 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 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)

  15. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence