§

Ex Parte Park et al

14065475 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)
Ex Parte Park et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,565 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. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.

    340 U.S. 147 (1950)   Cited 982 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding obvious a combination of old elements which perform the same function in combination and individually

  3. Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.

    425 U.S. 273 (1976)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a combination is obvious if a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields predictable results

  4. Anderson's-Black Rock v. Pavement Co.

    396 U.S. 57 (1969)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an invention combining a radiant heat burner and a paving machine into one device did nothing differently than if the two were used in sequence, and was therefore obvious

  5. Application of Ratti

    270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6452. September 30, 1959. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Raymond L. Greist, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to the

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,157 times   488 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."

  7. Section 1.17 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Patent application and reexamination processing fees

    37 C.F.R. § 1.17   Cited 5 times   52 Legal Analyses

    (a) Extension fees pursuant to § 1.136(a) : (1) For reply within first month: Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $44.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 88.00 By other than a small or micro entity 220.00 (2) For reply within second month: Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $128.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 256.00 By other than a small or micro entity 640.00 (3) For reply within third month: Table 3 to Paragraph (a)(3) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $296.00

  8. Section 1.8 - Certificate of mailing or transmission

    37 C.F.R. § 1.8   Cited 2 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) Except in the situations enumerated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section or as otherwise expressly excluded in this chapter, correspondence required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office within a set period of time will be considered as being timely filed if the procedure described in this section is followed. The actual date of receipt will be used for all other purposes. (1) Correspondence will be considered as being timely filed if: (i) The correspondence is mailed or transmitted