§

Ex Parte Kumar et al

12509131 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)
Ex Parte Kumar et al

7 Cited authorities

  1. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 381 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  2. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 145 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[t]he claimed . . . parameters . . . [were] inherent properties of the obvious . . . formulation," and thus "[t]he reduced food effect was an inherent result of [a composition] even if it was previously not known in the prior art that a food effect existed"

  3. In re Imes

    778 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 2 times   5 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1206. 2015-01-29 In re Kevin R. IMES. John S. Artz, Dickinson Wright PLLC, of Troy, Michigan, for appellant. Of counsel were Bryan Joseph Schomer and Frank Michael Smith. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief were Thomas W. Krause, Deputy Solicitor, Joseph G. Piccolo and Joseph Matal, Associate Solicitors. MOORE Reversed and remanded. John S. Artz, Dickinson Wright PLLC

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,144 times   481 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."

  5. 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

  6. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)

  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