KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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"

Phillips v. AWH Corp.

Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

In re Kahn

Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price

Holding that the objective considerations of nonobviousness presented, including substantial evidence of commercial success, praise, and long-felt need, were inadequate to overcome a strong showing of primary considerations that rendered the claims at issue invalid

Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc.

Affirming district court's striking in part of an expert declaration that included untimely disclosures

In re Morris

Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.

Finding appellants' burden of proof under section 282 to be "more easily carried" because the court did not have the benefit of the PTO's view on the validity of the references

Merck Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories

Holding that the prior art's disclosure of a multitude of combinations failed to render any particular formulation less obvious

Hyatt v. Dudas

Upholding the patent examiner's initial rejection in which the examiner found failure to satisfy the written description requirement because “the written description did not support the particular claimed combination of elements”— i.e., “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination ”

In re Keller

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"

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

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."

Section 101 - Inventions patentable

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well