§

Ex Parte Kolouch

10194742 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)
Ex Parte Kolouch

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 23 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  3. Badasa v. Mukasey

    540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding Wikipedia was not a sufficiently reliable source on which to rest a determination of asylum

  4. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  5. Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-08-CV-00214-TJW (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-08-CV-00214-TJW. April 29, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER T. WARD, District Judge Before the Court is Blackboard, Inc.'s ("Blackboard") Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Cause No. 2:09-cv-00042, Dkt. No. 4). Blackboard moves to enjoin TechRadium, Inc. ("TechRadium") from making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States its Immediate Response Information System ("IRIS") product, which Blackboard claims infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,816,878 ("the `878 patent")

  6. 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."

  7. 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"

  8. 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

  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)