§

Ex Parte Estrela Ariquel et al

15041013 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019)
Ex Parte Estrela Ariquel et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Ben Venue Labs

    246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 274 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding preamble language non-limiting in method of treatment claims containing two steps, the second of which was administering a compound

  2. Rowe v. Dror

    112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 224 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "balloon angioplasty catheter" in preamble to claim was structural limitation

  3. In re Huai-Hung Kao

    639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 87 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "food effect" was obvious because the effect was an inherent property of the composition

  4. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 84 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  5. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 76 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 55 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no clear error in district court's fact finding that "entecavir's ‘effectiveness against hepatitis B without known toxicity issues’ was ‘not unexpected ,’ " and deferring to district court's finding that this was not sufficient evidence of nonobviousness

  7. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,066 times   464 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."

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  10. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)