Ex Parte Ramberg et al

22 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,547 times 185 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"
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,179 times 68 Legal Analyses
Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
United States v. Adams
383 U.S. 39 (1966) Cited 479 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to ignore long-accepted factors in the field of wet batters to arrive at the claimed invention
In re Gartside
203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 518 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence
Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 262 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 187 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding as conditions in which "obvious to try" may negate patentability, "the problem is known, the possible approaches to solving the problem are known and finite, and the solution is predictable through use of a known option"
In re Kubin
561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 134 times 10 Legal Analyses
Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied
Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.
587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 115 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that “an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill [which] do[es] not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”
In re O'Farrell
853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 168 times 9 Legal Analyses
Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.
262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 114 times
Affirming identification of corresponding structure as including "egg-shaped indicia having `a slight taper at the portion of each indicia situated closest to the palm of the hand, and any equivalents of such structure'"
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,129 times 479 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."
Section 1.104 - Nature of examination
37 C.F.R. § 1.104 Cited 53 times 9 Legal Analyses
Providing reasons for patent examiner's rejection of claims, including rejection for prior art "unless the entire rights to the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the same person . . ."
Section 1.136 - Extensions of time
37 C.F.R. § 1.136 Cited 17 times 30 Legal Analyses
(a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

Ex Parte Ramberg et al

22 Cited authorities

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"

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to ignore long-accepted factors in the field of wet batters to arrive at the claimed invention

Holding that factual determinations underlying an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewed for substantial evidence

Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

Holding as conditions in which "obvious to try" may negate patentability, "the problem is known, the possible approaches to solving the problem are known and finite, and the solution is predictable through use of a known option"

Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

Holding that “an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill [which] do[es] not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”

Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"

Affirming identification of corresponding structure as including "egg-shaped indicia having `a slight taper at the portion of each indicia situated closest to the palm of the hand, and any equivalents of such structure'"

Providing reasons for patent examiner's rejection of claims, including rejection for prior art "unless the entire rights to the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the same person . . ."