§

Ex Parte Georgakis et al

14620404 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)
Ex Parte Georgakis et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,563 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. Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.

    587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 117 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill [which] do[es] not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”

  3. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 89 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  4. St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc.

    729 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2012–1452. 2013-12-9 ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., and St. Jude Medical Puerto Rico, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. ACCESS CLOSURE, INC., Defendant–Appellant. Andrei Iancu, Irell & Manella, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Morgan Chu, Alan J. Heinrich, Keith A. Orso, C. Maclain Wells, Eric B. Hanson and Laura Evans. Joseph R. Re, Knobbe, Martens Olson & Bear, LLP, of Irvine, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was Tanya Mazur

  5. Application of Mindick

    371 F.2d 892 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7731. February 9, 1967. Herbert B. Keil, Richard L. Johnston, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern district of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 13 and 14 of application

  6. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,399 times   1051 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,154 times   485 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."

  8. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,522 times   2289 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 187 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 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)

  12. Section 1.46 - Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter

    37 C.F.R. § 1.46   Cited 2 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. (b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph