§

Ex Parte Peterson et al

13839859 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2018)
Ex Parte Peterson et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 165 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  3. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.

    832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 48 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Affirming that courts should "consider common sense, common wisdom, and common knowledge in analyzing obviousness"

  4. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  5. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  6. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.

    885 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2016-2523, 2016-2524 03-23-2018 DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant v. APPLE INC., Appellee Eric William Buether, Buether Joe & Carpenter LLC, Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by Brian Andrew Carpenter ; Andriy Lytvyn, Smith & Hopen, PA, Oldsmar, FL. Jon Wright, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David K.S. Cornwell, Jason A. Fitzsimmons. O'Malley, Circuit Judge. Eric William Buether, Buether Joe & Carpenter LLC

  7. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 30 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  8. In re Jones

    958 F.2d 347 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Reversing the prima facie obviousness finding because of the "lack of close similarity of structure"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,065 times   461 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."

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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