KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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"

Concrete Pipe Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Trust

Holding that withdrawal liability as applied to Concrete Pipe, the employer, did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the imposition of withdrawal liability was clearly rational inasmuch as the employer's liability was based on a proportion of its contributions during its participation in the plan

Edison Co. v. Labor Board

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

U.S. v. Dunkel

Holding that "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the record

Liebel-Flarsheim Company v. Medrad, Inc.

Holding that claim terms are given the full breadth of their ordinary meaning unless a clear disavowal of scope is stated in the specification

Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

Holding actual use dispositive, regardless of the type of transfer

49er Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

Discussing determination of priority of invention under § 102(g), and noting that "§ 102(g) prior art can be used for § 103", id. at 1371 n. 1, 231 USPQ 84 n. 1

Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.

Holding that evidence of routine business practice can be used to prove that a reference was accessible

Section 112 - Specification

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

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."

Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

Prohibiting addition of "new matter"

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings

Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"

Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Section 306 - Appeal

Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete

Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well