§
Ex Parte Liu

9 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,569 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. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch Lomb Inc.

    909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding § 271(c) codified common law doctrine prohibiting sale of "component" that "had no other use except with claimed product or process"

  3. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  4. In re Hallman

    655 F.2d 212 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    Appeal No. 81-524. July 16, 1981. Harry V. Strampel, Wallenstein, Spangenberg, Hattis Strampel, Sidney W. Russell, Arlington, Va., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., for Board of Appeals. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals ("board") sustaining the Examiner's rejection

  5. Roberts v. Ryer

    91 U.S. 150 (1875)   Cited 98 times
    In Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 151, 23 L. Ed. 267, the Supreme Court said it is no new invention to use an old machine for a new purpose.

  6. Application of Michlin

    45 C.C.P.A. 1028 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6373. June 24, 1958. Hyman A. Michlin, pro se. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (David Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, Judges. WORLEY, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the final rejection by the Primary Examiner of claims 94, 95, and 97 to 100, inclusive, of appellant's application for a patent on

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,165 times   492 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."

  8. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  9. 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)