§

Ex parte Rappaport

08383996 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 5, 1998)
Ex parte Rappaport

14 Cited authorities

  1. ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital

    732 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 168 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent claims "should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity"

  2. Dillon v. Manbeck

    500 U.S. 904 (1991)   Cited 34 times

    No. 90-1264. April 29, 1991, OCTOBER TERM, 1990. C.A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 2d 688.

  3. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems

    72 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 93 times
    Affirming finding of no intent to deceive; omitted prior art reference was in files of several employees, but evidence did not show that inventor or attorney knew of it

  4. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  5. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  6. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 58 times
    In Lear Siegler, the holder of a patent for a brake unit sued a brake assembly manufacturer ("Aeroquip") for infringement.

  7. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  8. In re Young

    927 F.2d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 17 times
    Observing that in an obviousness inquiry, courts consider a prior art "reference for what it disclose in relation to the claimed invention."

  9. In re Nilssen

    851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting applicant's argument that the prior art must contain an express suggestion to combine

  10. Application of Bozek

    416 F.2d 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that a patent examiner may properly rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art" in making conclusions regarding obviousness

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 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."

  12. 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)