§

Ex Parte Kivits et al

10484255 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 2010)
Ex Parte Kivits et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,547 times   185 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. Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 282 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a chemical formulation that the applicants could have claimed given that it appeared in their priority application, but chose not to, falls outside the scope, literal or equivalent, of the claim

  3. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 280 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  4. Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

    439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 276 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding arguments insufficiently developed in briefing are forfeited

  5. Amgen v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche

    580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 209 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct "is analogous to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103"

  6. Connell v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    722 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 262 times
    Finding that the "right to exclude recognized in a patent is the essence of the concept of property"

  7. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  8. Application of Petering

    301 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 76 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding in a case involving twenty compounds that a general chemical formula will anticipate a claimed species covered by the formula when the species can be `at once envisaged' from the formula

  9. Application of Stephens

    345 F.2d 1020 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7394. June 9, 1965. Thomas E. Scofield, Kansas City, Mo., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 16 and 17 in appellants' application for a "Dense Faced Laminated Structure." Serial No. 750,654

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,997 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  13. 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