11 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,568 times 187 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert
512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 304 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”
Wyers v. Master Lock Co.
616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 207 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that a motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success exist when "it is simply a matter of common sense" to combine known elements of the prior art to solve a known problem
In re Kubin
561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 137 times 10 Legal AnalysesFinding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied
In re Dillon
919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 69 times 6 Legal AnalysesFinding 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
In re Morris
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 49 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness
In re Hyatt
708 F.2d 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 64 times 3 Legal AnalysesRejecting "single means" claim, as such claims "cover[] every conceivable means for achieving the stated result"
Matter of Melton
60 B.R. 25 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1986) Cited 2 timesNo. CV. 85-0-1074, Bankruptcy No. 85-1212. April 16, 1986. Horace Reynolds, IV, Omaha, Neb., for appellant. Lynn Timmerman Fees, Omaha, Neb., for respondent. ORDER STROM, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska's decision denying attorney's fees. The attorney for UP Terminal Federal Credit Union suggests that Bankruptcy Judge Timothy Mahoney improperly denied his application for attorney fees incurred
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,159 times 489 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
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
Section 1.75 - Claim(s)
37 C.F.R. § 1.75 Cited 113 times 12 Legal AnalysesSetting forth proper drafts for independent and dependent claims