§

Ex Parte Flake et al

12154423 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)
Ex Parte Flake et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,565 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 149 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  3. Standard Havens Products v. Gencor Indus

    953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding method claims were not directly infringed by the mere sale of an apparatus capable of performing the claimed process

  4. Akzo N.V. v. U.S. International Trade Commission

    808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 145 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the former requirement to prove an injury to the domestic industry, which was “wed[ded] to the particular facts of each case” and was “precisely the type of question which Congress has committed to the expertise of the Commission,” was subject to substantial evidence review

  5. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  6. Application of Kronig

    539 F.2d 1300 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 18 times
    Holding no new ground of rejection when the Board relied on the same statutory basis and the same reasoning advanced by the examiner

  7. Application of Krammes

    314 F.2d 813 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6938. March 20, 1963. Richard R. Fitzsimmons, North Canton, Ohio, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 18, 19, 23 through 27 and 29 of appellant's application

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,157 times   488 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 188 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 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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

  11. Section 5-A:1 - Adoption of Compact

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5-A:1   Cited 5 times

    The following interpleader compact is hereby approved, ratified, adopted and entered into by this state as a party state to take effect between this state and any other state or states as defined in said compact when entered into in accordance with the terms of said compact by said other state or states and not disapproved by the governor of this state under paragraph (c) of article 7 of such compact: Interpleader Compact The contracting states solemnly agree: Article 1.Purpose. The aims of this