§

Ex Parte Sato

11248295 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)
Ex Parte Sato

11 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 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. 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

  3. Lantz v. C.I.R

    607 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 40 times
    In Lantz, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of sec. 1.6015-5(b)(1), Income Tax Regs., which requires that a requesting spouse file a request for relief no more than two years after the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) first begins collection activity with respect to the year for which relief is requested.

  4. Bing Shun Li v. Holder

    400 F. App'x 854 (5th Cir. 2010)   Cited 17 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no persecution where applicant who challenged wife's forced abortion was fired from his job, detained for two days, subjected to coercive interrogation, and experienced some physical abuse not requiring medical attention

  5. Badasa v. Mukasey

    540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding Wikipedia was not a sufficiently reliable source on which to rest a determination of asylum

  6. U.S. v. Crooker

    608 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2010)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the federal definition of firearm "self-evidently does not include an air rifle ... which operates by compressed air"

  7. Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-08-CV-00214-TJW (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-08-CV-00214-TJW. April 29, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER T. WARD, District Judge Before the Court is Blackboard, Inc.'s ("Blackboard") Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Cause No. 2:09-cv-00042, Dkt. No. 4). Blackboard moves to enjoin TechRadium, Inc. ("TechRadium") from making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States its Immediate Response Information System ("IRIS") product, which Blackboard claims infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,816,878 ("the `878 patent")

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,066 times   464 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."

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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"

  10. 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

  11. 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)