Ex Parte Erlichman

12 Cited authorities

Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,185 times 68 Legal Analyses
Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.
488 U.S. 825 (1988) Cited 212 times
Holding that "one who republishes a defamatory statement `adopts' it as his own, and is liable in equal measure to the original defamer."
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.
837 F.2d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 163 times
Holding that the burden of proof is not reduced when prior art presented to the court was not considered by the PTO
ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital
732 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 168 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that patent claims "should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity"
Ashland Oil, v. Delta Resins Refractories
776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 120 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hile the opinion testimony of a party having a direct interest in the pending litigation is less persuasive than opinion testimony by a disinterested party, it cannot be disregarded for that reason alone and may be relied upon when sufficiently convincing"
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 68 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
Application of Rinehart
531 F.2d 1048 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 45 times
Considering the problem to be solved in a determination of obviousness
In re Hedges
783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 16 times 1 Legal Analyses
Proceeding against accepted wisdom is evidence of unobviousness
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,148 times 481 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 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"

Ex Parte Erlichman

12 Cited authorities

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Holding that "one who republishes a defamatory statement `adopts' it as his own, and is liable in equal measure to the original defamer."

Holding that the burden of proof is not reduced when prior art presented to the court was not considered by the PTO

Holding that patent claims "should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity"

Holding that "[w]hile the opinion testimony of a party having a direct interest in the pending litigation is less persuasive than opinion testimony by a disinterested party, it cannot be disregarded for that reason alone and may be relied upon when sufficiently convincing"

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

Considering the problem to be solved in a determination of obviousness

Proceeding against accepted wisdom is evidence of unobviousness

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"