§

Ex Parte RAU et al

13867308 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)
Ex Parte RAU et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,522 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. United States v. Adams

    383 U.S. 39 (1966)   Cited 478 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

  3. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 334 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  4. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories

    429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 202 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a witness's conclusory assertion that the evidence demonstrated "conception, diligence and reduction to practice" did not carry a party's burden on summary judgment

  5. Johns Hopkins University v. Cellpro

    152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 245 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding previously that "[w]hether infringement was willful is a question of fact, and we will not reverse a jury determination on this issue unless it was unsupported by substantial evidence"

  6. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

    750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 241 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding of enablement is not precluded even if some experimentation is necessary, although the amount of experimentation needed must not be unduly extensive

  7. Engel Industries, Inc., v. Lockformer Co.

    946 F.2d 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 82 times
    Reversing inequitable conduct holding as unsupportable as a matter of law because reference was cumulative

  8. In re Goodman

    11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO actions did not dictate the rate of prosecution when Goodman accepted early issuance of species claims and filed a continuation application to prosecute genus claims

  9. Application of Dinh-Nguyen

    492 F.2d 856 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9134. February 28, 1974. Anthony M. Lorusso, Kenway, Jenney Hildreth, Boston, Mass., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Henry W. Tarring, II, Falls Church, Va., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,283 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Requiring 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   459 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 182 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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)