§

Ex Parte Gan et al

11624985 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)
Ex Parte Gan et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,572 times   188 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. Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp.

    150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 197 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding award of damages for breach of contract was properly based on licensing fee established by expert testimony

  3. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.

    432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prior-art reference anticipated claims 1-4 and 7, but not claims 8, 9, and 13, because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation

  4. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 69 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any overlap between a claimed range and one in the prior art is sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness, even if insufficient to render it unpatentable

  5. Singh v. Brake

    317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times
    Ruling that a laboratory notebook entry did not corroborate an alleged conception because "[e]ven if the entry expressed the problem, it did not provide the solution"

  6. In re Antor Media Corp.

    689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 32 times   5 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1465. Reexamination Nos. 90/007,839 90/007,936 90/007,942 90/007,957 90/009,261. 2012-07-27 In re ANTOR MEDIA CORPORATION. Thomas A. Lewry, Brooks Kushman, P.C., of Southfield, Michigan, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Cunningham. William Lamarca, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitor. LOURIE

  7. Merck Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories

    874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prior art's disclosure of a multitude of combinations failed to render any particular formulation less obvious

  8. In re Asahi/America, Inc.

    68 F.3d 442 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    No. 94-1249. DECIDED February 24, 1995. Gerald E. Hespos, Casella and Hespos, New York City, argued, for appellant. With him on the brief was Anthony J. Casella. Muriel E. Crawford, Associate Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Albin F. Drost, Acting Sol. and Richard E. Schafer, Acting Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before RADER, Circuit Judge, SMITH, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit

  9. In re Mulder

    716 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]here is no question that applicants complied with all the formalities required by § 119 and related PTO rules"

  10. In re Fenn

    639 F.2d 762 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 80-583. January 8, 1981. William A. Skinner, Painesville, Ohio, and John W. Schneller, Washington, D.C., with whom Keil and Witherspoon, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Henry W. Tarring, II, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from The Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,169 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1027 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  16. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well