§

Ex Parte DAS et al

08445060 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2009)
Ex Parte DAS et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  3. Corona Co. v. Dovan Corp.

    276 U.S. 358 (1928)   Cited 204 times
    Rejecting claims to process of treating rubber with "'a disubstituted guanidine'" because "between fifty and one hundred substances" fit that description and the specification did not disclose "any general quality common to disubstituted guanidines which makes them all effective"

  4. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 107 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

  5. Litton Indus. Products, Inc. v. Solid St. Sys

    755 F.2d 158 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that when there is no decision by the highest state court on a specific state law issue, the Federal Circuit must decide whether the district court properly predicted applicable state law

  6. Okajima v. Bourdeau

    261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing how the prior art typically informs the question of the level of one of ordinary skill

  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 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)