§

Ex Parte Hathaway et al

09800793 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 3, 2007)
Ex Parte Hathaway et al

6 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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 O'Farrell

    853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 168 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"

  3. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  4. In re Hoch

    428 F.2d 1341 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 20 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8323. July 30, 1970. Raymond F. Kramer, Buffalo, N.Y., Donald C. Studley, William J. Schramm, Niagara Falls, N.Y., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the

  5. Application of Young

    403 F.2d 754 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8058. December 5, 1968. Ralph L. Young, pro se, James W. Dent, Donald J. Rich, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 16-18 in appellants' application for "Filters" as unpatentable

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 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."