§

Ex Parte Popovski et al

14453910 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2019)
Ex Parte Popovski et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,570 times   188 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. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 177 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  3. 3M Innovative Prop. v. Avery Dennison C

    350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 164 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "multiple embossed patterns" did not import a process limitation into a structural claim

  4. In re Urbanski

    809 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that loss of key functionality can be overcome by evidence that a POSA would nevertheless be motivated to combine references

  5. In re Nordt Dev. Co.

    881 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses

    2017-1445 02-08-2018 IN RE: NORDT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC, Appellant Jeremy Cooper Doerre, Tillman Wright PLLC, Charlotte, NC, argued for appellant. Joseph Gerard Piccolo, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Alexandria, VA, Thomas W. Krause, William LaMarca, Alexandria, VA. Stoll, Circuit Judge. Jeremy Cooper Doerre, Tillman Wright PLLC, Charlotte, NC, argued for appellant. Joseph

  6. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  7. In re Gordon

    733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a modification which renders the invention inoperable for its intended purpose is not obvious because it teaches away from the invention

  8. Application of Hotte

    475 F.2d 644 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8852. March 29, 1973. Walter S. Zebrowski, Big Flats, N.Y., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and WATSON, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the

  9. Krementz v. S. Cottle Co.

    148 U.S. 556 (1893)   Cited 33 times
    In Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U.S. 556, 13 S. Ct. 719, 37 L. Ed. 558, the inventive concept was that a collar button might be made of a single continuous piece of metal, in which the head was hollow and round in shape.

  10. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works

    150 U.S. 164 (1893)   Cited 23 times
    In Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164, 170, 14 S.Ct. 68, 70, 37 L.Ed. 1039 (1843), the Court held that the casting of a stone grate in one piece, which was formerly cast in two pieces, did not rise to the level of an invention.

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,166 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."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing