§

Ex Parte Debelius

09293455 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2003)
Ex Parte Debelius

28 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 Gartside

    203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 526 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

  3. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.

    810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 203 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that §§ 103 and 102 use the same definition of prior art

  4. Pro-Mold Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics

    75 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 155 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, though we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over unfair competition claims, our own circuit law nonetheless determines when inequitable conduct also constitutes unfair competition

  5. 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"

  6. In re Dembiczak

    175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 93 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to consider an obviousness rejection raised for the first time on appeal from the PTO

  7. Para-Ordnance Manufacturing, Inc. v. SGS Importers International, Inc.

    73 F.3d 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 81 times
    Explaining that "[f]rom the decision of the district court, we can, and do, accept the implicit fact-finding"

  8. In re Beattie

    974 F.2d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 63 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an alternative to a well-entrenched theory does not preclude a finding of obviousness because the recommendation of a new system "does not require obliteration of another"

  9. Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. United States

    702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 82 times
    Addressing obviousness

  10. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."

  12. 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

  13. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  14. 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)