§

Ex Parte Riggs-Sauthier et al

14122384 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2018)
Ex Parte Riggs-Sauthier et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 370 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  2. Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's

    533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 106 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a chemical compound non-obvious where the invention at issue replaced a more lipophilic substituent with a less lipophilic substituent in contravention of the prior art's teaching that lipophilicity at a particular position on a ring structure conferred beneficial results

  3. 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"

  4. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  5. Hoskins v. United States

    4 F.2d 804 (8th Cir. 1925)   Cited 4 times

    No. 6566. March 30, 1925. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; John H. Cotteral, Judge. Richard Hoskins was convicted of violating the Anti-Narcotic Act, and he brings error. Case dismissed. Lewis R. Morris and David Tant, both of Oklahoma City, Okla., for plaintiff in error. Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER and PHILLIPS, District Judges. SANBORN, Circuit Judge. This writ of error invokes a review of the trial and sentence to the penitentiary

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 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."

  7. 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"

  8. 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

  9. 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)