§

Ex Parte LI et al

12172174 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)
Ex Parte LI et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Daiichi Sankyo v. Matrix Lab

    619 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 35 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming district court's finding that asserted claims were not obvious under structural obviousness analysis because defendant failed to demonstrate POSA would have chosen compounds as lead compounds

  2. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  3. In re Jones

    958 F.2d 347 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Reversing the prima facie obviousness finding because of the "lack of close similarity of structure"

  4. Application of May

    574 F.2d 1082 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding isolated stereoisomer nonobvious over racemic mixture of stereoisomers, after conceded prima facie showing of obviousness, because isolated stereoisomer was unexpectedly nonaddictive

  5. In re Grabiak

    769 F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 19 times

    Appeal No. 84-1718. Decided: August 9, 1985. J. Timothy Keane, Monsanto Company, of St. Louis, Mo., argued for appellants. Richard H. Shear, Monsanto Company, was on the brief. Fred W. Sherling, U.S. Patent Trademark Office, of Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., and Harris A. Pitlick, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before FRIEDMAN, NIES, and NEWMAN

  6. Application of Wilder

    563 F.2d 457 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 17 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-706. October 13, 1977. Ellsworth H. Mosher, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellant, Edward P. Grattan, St. Louis, Mo., Richard O. Zerbe, Akron, Ohio, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the April 30, 1976 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board)

  7. In re Hoch

    428 F.2d 1341 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 20 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8323. July 30, 1970. Raymond F. Kramer, Buffalo, N.Y., Donald C. Studley, William J. Schramm, Niagara Falls, N.Y., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the

  8. In re Fenn

    639 F.2d 762 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 80-583. January 8, 1981. William A. Skinner, Painesville, Ohio, and John W. Schneller, Washington, D.C., with whom Keil and Witherspoon, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Henry W. Tarring, II, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from The Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from

  9. 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."

  10. 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"

  11. 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

  12. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  13. Section 1.136 - 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)