§
Ex parte HOU

11 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  3. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  4. In re Marosi

    710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the patent "provided a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine" a phrase of degree

  5. In re Sneed

    710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that a prior art reference should not be considered "because it deals with collapsible hose rather than flexible plastic pipe and teaches that rolling 600 feet of 4 inch, noncollapsible hose into a transportable bundle is virtually 'an insurmountable task'" because "it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."

  6. 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

  7. In re Voss

    557 F.2d 812 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-710. June 23, 1977. Clinton S. Janes, Jr., Corning, N.Y., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Fred E. McKelvey, Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and SCOVEL RICHARDSON, Associate Judge, United States Customs Court. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent

  8. Application of Rothermel

    276 F.2d 393 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 22 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6470. March 30, 1960. Reuben Wolk, I. Louis Wolk, Los Angeles, Cal. (Lawrence B. Biebel, Dayton, Ohio, of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Arthur H. Behrens, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and JOHNSON (retired), Judges. SMITH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 15 through 20, in

  9. Application of Okuzawa

    537 F.2d 545 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-561. July 22, 1976. Charles L. Gholz, Sughrue, Rothwell, Mion, Zinn Macpeak, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, John W. Dewhirst, Joseph T. Zatarga, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeal. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, LANE and MILLER, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and

  10. In re Herz

    537 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" permits some additional elements, but excludes additional unspecified materials or steps that would "materially affect the basic and novel characteristic" of the claimed invention

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."