§

Ex Parte Mitchell et al

12507940 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)
Ex Parte Mitchell et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,574 times   189 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. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 383 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  3. Texas Instruments v. U.S. Intl. Trade Com'n

    988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 272 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim."

  4. Johnston v. Ivac Corp.

    885 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that Section 112 "operates to cut back on the types of means which could literally satisfy the claim language" and thereby "restricts the scope of the literal claim language" by requiring the structures to appear in the specification

  5. 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

  6. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 84 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  7. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc.

    407 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 69 times
    Holding district court erred in not considering a reference that post-dates the priority date when it is relevant to what "was known in the art at the relevant time"

  8. In re Soni

    54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 92 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "substantially improved results" to overcome obviousness when the 50-fold improvement in tensile strength was much greater than would have been predicted

  9. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  10. Application of Sponnoble

    405 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8007. January 16, 1969. Raywood H. Blanchard, Kalamazoo, Mich., (Eugene O. Retter, George T. Johannesen, Kalamazoo, Mich., 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 RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the examiner's rejection of the sole remaining claim in

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 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."

  12. 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"

  13. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  14. 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)