§

Ex Parte Roth et al

15409120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019)
Ex Parte Roth et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   168 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. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 259 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

  3. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 141 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  4. 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'"

  5. Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price

    485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 90 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective considerations of nonobviousness presented, including substantial evidence of commercial success, praise, and long-felt need, were inadequate to overcome a strong showing of primary considerations that rendered the claims at issue invalid

  6. Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Manufacturing Michigan Inc.

    192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that regardless of whether defendant had shown a motivation to combine the prior art, the showing could be rebutted by evidence of commercial success

  7. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 76 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  8. In re Gurley

    27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 100 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

  9. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  10. Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.

    849 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2016-1755 03-07-2017 Michael MEIRESONNE, Appellant v. GOOGLE, INC., Appellee Mark A. Jotanovic, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, MI, argued for appellant. Also represented by Thomas A. Lewry, William G. Abbatt, John S. Leroy. Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Israel Sasha Mayergoyz, Chicago, IL; Krista Schwartz, San Francisco, CA. Moore, Circuit Judge. Mark A. Jotanovic , Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, MI, argued for appellant. Also represented

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,054 times   445 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 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)