§

Ex Parte Kitagawa et al

13224063 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017)
Ex Parte Kitagawa et al

7 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,563 times   187 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. In re Burhans

    154 F.2d 690 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5128. April 1, 1946. Appeal from Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 401,968. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Merton E. Burhans for a patent for methods of making flour and bread and for an article of manufacture of genuine whole wheat flour. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the primary examiner in rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Decision affirmed. John

  3. In re Lang

    97 F.2d 626 (C.C.P.A. 1938)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3998. June 27, 1938. Appeal from Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 604,648. Proceeding on the application of Alphonse Lang and another for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting all claims of the application, applicants appeal. Affirmed. George S. Hawke, of Cincinnati, Ohio, pro se, for appellants. R.F. Whitehead, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of

  4. In re McKee

    83 F.2d 819 (C.C.P.A. 1936)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3622. June 1, 1936. Appeal from Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 518,766. Proceeding in the matter of the application for a patent by Harry H. McKee. A decision of the examiner rejecting the application was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, and applicant appeals. Affirmed. Roy W. Johns, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. R.F. Whitehead, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the

  5. In re Gibson

    39 F.2d 975 (C.C.P.A. 1930)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 2298. April 14, 1930. Appeal from Patent Office. In the matter of the patent application of William Gibson. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the Examiner denying all claims in the application, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Paul Carpenter, of New York City (J.T. Basseches, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,154 times   485 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."

  7. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by