13 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,568 times 187 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
In re Merck Co., Inc.
800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 70 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
In re Jung
637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 24 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant
In re Fritch
972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 32 timesStating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"
In re Keller
642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 47 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating "[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"
In re Pearson
494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 29 timesAffirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate
Application of Aller
220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955) Cited 47 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding no criticality where claimed conditions allegedly contributed to roughly 20 percentage point improvement in yield
Application of Preda
401 F.2d 825 (C.C.P.A. 1968) Cited 5 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 8016. October 24, 1968. Wenderoth, Lind Ponack, A. Ponak, Washington, D.C. (John T. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 7 and 8 of application serial No. 269,707
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,409 times 1060 Legal AnalysesRequiring 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
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,159 times 489 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
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 41.37 - Appeal brief
37 C.F.R. § 41.37 Cited 32 times 25 Legal AnalysesRequiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well