§

Ex Parte KAIROUZ et al

14446064 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)
Ex Parte KAIROUZ et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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. Ortho-McNeil v. Mylan Lab

    520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 178 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patented invention was not obvious where a POSA had no reason to select the exact route among several unpredictable alternatives

  3. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  4. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  5. In re Graves

    69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 41 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that although the court “cannot exercise jurisdiction over the appeal before the [agency] enters its reconsideration decision,” its jurisdiction “was, in effect, suspended until the [agency] acted”

  6. Application of LeGrice

    301 F.2d 929 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 44 times

    Patent Appeals Nos. 6727, 6728. May 4, 1962. Rehearing Denied July 11, 1962. John H. Leonard, Cleveland, Ohio (Spencer B. Michael, Smith, Michael Gardiner, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commission of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 times   459 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 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)