§

Ex Parte Buchholz et al

12739655 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)
Ex Parte Buchholz et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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. Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated

    190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 163 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized

  3. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

    726 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 64 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that evidence that a particular combination solved additional problems was insufficient to outweigh other evidence of obviousness in view of a separate motivation to make the combination

  4. In re Rijckaert

    9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 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

  5. In re Clemens

    622 F.2d 1029 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding narrow range of data could not “be reasonably extended to prove the unobviousness of a broader claimed range”

  6. Application of Paul

    45 C.C.P.A. 793 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6323. January 31, 1958. Andrew B. Beveridge and Joseph A. De Grandi, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Arthur H. Behrens, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY and RICH, Judges. O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming the Primary Examiner's rejection of claims 18, 19, 20, 21, and

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  8. 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"

  9. 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

  10. 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