§

Ex Parte Machhammer et al

11751202 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)
Ex Parte Machhammer et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,568 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. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 149 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  3. In re Dembiczak

    175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 93 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to consider an obviousness rejection raised for the first time on appeal from the PTO

  4. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 107 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

  5. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 32 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  6. In re Brouwer

    77 F.3d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 3 times
    In Riddell, this Court rejected an argument that the complaint violated Rule 8 by lumping all defendants together without specifying the alleged misconduct of each defendant, because it was "apparent" that the claims were asserted against all defendants "for their concerted conduct under the 'Riddell' brand."

  7. Application of Royka

    490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing that if an independent claim is not anticipated, its dependent claims are also not anticipated

  8. Application of Schneller

    397 F.2d 350 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7883. June 27, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 10, 1968. Robert F. Hause, Buffalo, N.Y. (James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and Judges RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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 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

  11. 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