Ex Parte Ruigrok et al

17 Cited authorities

Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,181 times 68 Legal Analyses
Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.
488 U.S. 825 (1988) Cited 212 times
Holding that "one who republishes a defamatory statement `adopts' it as his own, and is liable in equal measure to the original defamer."
W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock
721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 327 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.
837 F.2d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 163 times
Holding that the burden of proof is not reduced when prior art presented to the court was not considered by the PTO
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"
Ashland Oil, v. Delta Resins Refractories
776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 120 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hile the opinion testimony of a party having a direct interest in the pending litigation is less persuasive than opinion testimony by a disinterested party, it cannot be disregarded for that reason alone and may be relied upon when sufficiently convincing"
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"
Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp.
468 U.S. 1228 (1984) Cited 19 times
Finding that, when viewed in context, plaintiff's counsel's "Golden Rule" and other improper arguments did not prejudice defendants
In re Fine
837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 67 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."
In re Piasecki
745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 73 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,133 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,004 times 1001 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
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
Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved
37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196 Cited 20 times 4 Legal Analyses
Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

Ex Parte Ruigrok et al

17 Cited authorities

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Holding that "one who republishes a defamatory statement `adopts' it as his own, and is liable in equal measure to the original defamer."

Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

Holding that the burden of proof is not reduced when prior art presented to the court was not considered by the PTO

Holding that patent claims "should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity"

Holding that "[w]hile the opinion testimony of a party having a direct interest in the pending litigation is less persuasive than opinion testimony by a disinterested party, it cannot be disregarded for that reason alone and may be relied upon when sufficiently convincing"

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"

Finding that, when viewed in context, plaintiff's counsel's "Golden Rule" and other improper arguments did not prejudice defendants

Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"