Ex Parte Chekuri et al

8 Cited authorities

Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v. Am. Hoist
730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 200 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"
In re Sang-Su Lee
277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 106 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that agency tribunals "must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action"
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 Fine
837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 69 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."
In re Piasecki
745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 73 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem
In re King
801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 46 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure
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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,033 times 1028 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Ex Parte Chekuri et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"

Holding that agency tribunals "must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action"

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"

Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem

Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure

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