§

Ex parte Deynet

08303115 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2000)
Ex parte Deynet

6 Cited authorities

  1. In re Rouffet

    149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 160 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that objective evidence of nonobviousness [secondary considerations] "includes copying, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, commercial success, unexpected results created by the claimed invention, unexpected properties of the claimed invention, licenses showing industry respect for the invention, and skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention"

  2. In re Kotzab

    217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a patent to be obvious, "there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant."

  3. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems

    72 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 93 times
    Affirming finding of no intent to deceive; omitted prior art reference was in files of several employees, but evidence did not show that inventor or attorney knew of it

  4. In re Dance

    160 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 19 times

    No. 97-1229. October 30, 1998. Grady J. Frenchick, Stroud, Stroud, Willink Thompson Howard, Madison, Wisconsin, argued for appellants Dance, et al. of counsel on the brief was Karen B. King. David J. Ball, Jr., Associate Solicitor, Office of Solicitor, Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. With him on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor, and Scott A. Chambers, Associate Solicitor. Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN

  5. In re Gordon

    733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a modification which renders the invention inoperable for its intended purpose is not obvious because it teaches away from the invention

  6. 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."