§

Ex Parte Kanzaki et al

13634128 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017)
Ex Parte Kanzaki et al

23 Cited authorities

  1. In re Applied Materials, Inc.

    692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the board correctly rejected claims as obvious where "there was no indication that obtaining the claimed dimensions was beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any unexpectedly beneficial properties"

  2. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 94 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  3. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.

    469 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 31 times
    Affirming the district court's holding of invalidity despite the court's statement that “[t]here is no indication that the [motivation to combine] was non-obvious,” because the district court's opinion as a whole indicated it “correctly allocated the burden of proof”

  4. In re Leithem

    661 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 17 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the Board issued a new ground of rejection despite the fact that the Board “agreed with Leithem” that Novak did not teach a fluffed pulp

  5. In re De Blauwe

    736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-513. June 8, 1984. Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Pasadena, Cal., argued for appellants. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge. JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from that part of the decision of the

  6. In re Harris

    409 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that unexpected results require a difference in kind, not merely degree (citing In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996))

  7. Application of Moore

    439 F.2d 1232 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 46 times
    Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims

  8. Application of Payne

    606 F.2d 303 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the presumption of obviousness based on close structural similarity

  9. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  10. Hickerson v. Maggio

    691 F.2d 792 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 16 times

    No. 81-3660. November 18, 1982. Julian R. Murray, Jr., New Orleans, La. (Court-appointed), for plaintiff-appellant. William R. Campbell, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Before RUBIN, RANDALL and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Emmett Hickerson appeals from the denial of his habeas corpus petition after the district court considered only the state court record and the pleadings

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,283 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  16. 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

  17. 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)