12 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,575 times 189 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"
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,190 times 68 Legal AnalysesHolding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.
432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 147 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that a prior-art reference anticipated claims 1-4 and 7, but not claims 8, 9, and 13, because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation
In re Gurley
27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 102 times 3 Legal AnalysesUpholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."
In re Geisler
116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 52 times 4 Legal AnalysesFinding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"
In re Dance
160 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 19 timesNo. 97-1229. October 30, 1998. Grady J. Frenchick, Stroud, Stroud, Willink Thompson Howard, Madison, Wisconsin, argued for appellants Dance, et al. of counsel on the brief was Karen B. King. David J. Ball, Jr., Associate Solicitor, Office of Solicitor, Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. With him on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor, and Scott A. Chambers, Associate Solicitor. Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN
Application of Johnson
558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesReversing rejection for inadequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but excluded two species of lost interference count
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,420 times 1069 Legal AnalysesRequiring 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
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,172 times 492 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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 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
Section 41.37 - Appeal brief
37 C.F.R. § 41.37 Cited 32 times 25 Legal AnalysesRequiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well