Ex Parte Finn et al
6 Cited authorities
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 259 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding that inventor's unwitnessed notebook was not adequate corroborating evidence of an earlier invention date
Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm
492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 154 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding the invention not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have selected for further investigation
In re Soni
54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 92 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding "substantially improved results" to overcome obviousness when the 50-fold improvement in tensile strength was much greater than would have been predicted
In re Dillon
919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 69 times 6 Legal AnalysesFinding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,158 times 488 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"