§

Ex Parte GRANT et al

14810617 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019)
Ex Parte GRANT et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.

    616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 88 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claimed step of informing someone about an inherent property of a method was printed matter

  2. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 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

  3. Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin

    499 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 39 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if it is known that some desirable property of a mixture derives in whole or in part from a particular one of its components, or if the prior art would provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with reason to believe that this is so, the purified compound is prima facie obvious over the mixture"

  4. In re Woodruff

    919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claimed invention obvious because claimed range (“more than 5% to about 25%” carbon monoxide) abutted range of prior art (“about 1–5%” carbon monoxide)

  5. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 39 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  6. Application of Mullin

    481 F.2d 1333 (C.C.P.A. 1973)

    Patent Appeal No. 8905. August 16, 1973. Charles M. Hogan, Cincinnati, Ohio, Abraham Ogman, Peabody, Mass., attorneys of record, for appellants. Morris Fidelman, Fidelman, Wolffe, Leitner Hiney, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. ALMOND, Senior

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,053 times   443 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 180 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"

  9. 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

  10. 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