§
Ex parte LYNCH

4 Cited authorities

  1. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 39 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  2. In re Sung Nam Cho

    813 F.2d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the Board's holding that "the artisan would have been motivated" to combine the references

  3. Application of Antle

    444 F.2d 1168 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 26 times
    Warning against selection of prior art with hindsight

  4. 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."