§

Ex parte OHKI et al.

08363315 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2001)
Ex parte OHKI et al.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 335 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  2. In re Robertson

    169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

  3. In re Oelrich

    666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 94 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )

  4. In re Zurko

    258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's affirmance of an examiner's obviousness rejection where the Board failed to identify "concrete evidence in the record" supporting its findings

  5. 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."