§

Ex Parte Hinze et al

11963299 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)
Ex Parte Hinze et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   169 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. Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.

    425 U.S. 273 (1976)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a combination is obvious if a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields predictable results

  3. In re Gurley

    27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 100 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."

  4. In re Suong–Hyu Hyon

    679 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that motivation to combine is an underlying factual issue that is reviewed for substantial evidence

  5. Hartman v. Nicholson

    483 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 10 times

    No. 2006-7303. April 5, 2007. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, William P. Greene, Jr., Chief Judge. Susan Paczak, Abes Baumann, P.C., of Pittsburgh, PA, argued for claimant-appellant. Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for the respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and David M. Cohen, Director

  6. Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy

    742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting we do not "sit to review what the Commission has not decided"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   447 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 182 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 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

  10. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)