Ex Parte CHATAIGNER et al

13 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,576 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"
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni
158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 1,720 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.
441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 339 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a patent claim construction that reads limitations out of a claim is "contrary to the principle that claim language should not [be] treated as meaningless"
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 284 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.
349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 79 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding no material misrepresentation in part because a PTO examiner's reasons for allowance did not reflect that the PTO relied on the allegedly false applicant statements
In re Skvorecz
580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 50 times
Finding that the phrase "at the separation" "d[id] not require further antecedent basis" because "a person skilled in the field of the invention would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the specification"
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"
In re Fritch
972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 32 times
Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"
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
Application of Royka
490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 18 times
Recognizing that if an independent claim is not anticipated, its dependent claims are also not anticipated
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,034 times 1029 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 189 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"
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

Ex Parte CHATAIGNER et al

13 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

Holding a patent claim construction that reads limitations out of a claim is "contrary to the principle that claim language should not [be] treated as meaningless"

Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

Finding no material misrepresentation in part because a PTO examiner's reasons for allowance did not reflect that the PTO relied on the allegedly false applicant statements

Finding that the phrase "at the separation" "d[id] not require further antecedent basis" because "a person skilled in the field of the invention would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the specification"

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"

Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

Recognizing that if an independent claim is not anticipated, its dependent claims are also not anticipated

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

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"