§

Ex Parte Kiener et al

12297666 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2012)
Ex Parte Kiener et al

13 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. Pharmastem v. Viacell

    491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 199 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "none of [the activities governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)] refer to the provision of a service."

  3. In re Kubin

    561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 130 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

  4. In re Huai-Hung Kao

    639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 87 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "food effect" was obvious because the effect was an inherent property of the composition

  5. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  6. Merck Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories

    874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prior art's disclosure of a multitude of combinations failed to render any particular formulation less obvious

  7. In re Crish

    393 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 04-1075. December 21, 2004. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Peter G. Carroll, Medlen Carroll, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Brown. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and William G. Jenks, Associate Solicitor.

  8. In re Corkill

    771 F.2d 1496 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Affirming obviousness rejection of claims in light of prior art teaching that "hydrated zeolites will work" in detergent formulations, even though "the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among 'thousands' of compounds"

  9. APPLICATION OF SUSI

    440 F.2d 442 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8392. April 22, 1971. Rehearing Denied June 10, 1971. William Kaufman, Harry H. Kline, Roland A. Dexter, Stamford, Conn., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. R.E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,056 times   449 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."

  11. 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"

  12. 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

  13. 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)