§

Ex Parte Gleichauf

10061901 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)
Ex Parte Gleichauf

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,568 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. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  3. McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.

    262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 115 times
    Affirming identification of corresponding structure as including "egg-shaped indicia having `a slight taper at the portion of each indicia situated closest to the palm of the hand, and any equivalents of such structure'"

  4. In re Gurley

    27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 102 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

  5. In re Clay

    966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 88 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a reference was not reasonably pertinent where a PHOSITA "would not reasonably have expected to solve the [relevant] problem ... by considering" that reference

  6. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  7. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  8. Hyatt v. Dudas

    492 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the patent examiner's initial rejection in which the examiner found failure to satisfy the written description requirement because “the written description did not support the particular claimed combination of elements”— i.e., “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination ”

  9. In re Gorman

    933 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 90-1362. May 13, 1991. Thomas W. Tolpin, Highland Park, Ill., argued for appellant. Teddy S. Gron, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey B. Gorman and Marilyn Katz (hereinafter "Gorman") appeal the decision of the United States

  10. In re Nielson

    816 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 86-1692. Decided April 21, 1987. Philip A. Mallinckrodt, of Mallinckrodt Mallinckrodt, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor, and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Patent applicant Jay P. Nielson

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."

  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 1.136 - [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)

  16. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by