§

Ex Parte Schubert et al

12063522 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017)
Ex Parte Schubert et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Applied Materials, Inc.

    692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 66 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the board correctly rejected claims as obvious where "there was no indication that obtaining the claimed dimensions was beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any unexpectedly beneficial properties"

  2. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

    796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 55 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was error to rely on a clinical protocol to show earlier possession because the protocol was not disclosed in the specifications of the asserted patents

  3. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  4. 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"

  5. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Board of Regents

    334 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 46 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing an identical interpretation

  6. 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"

  7. Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    460 F. Supp. 2d 655 (D.N.J. 2006)

    Civ. Action No. 04-754 (JCL). November 6, 2006. David E. Delorenzi, Sheila F. McShane, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger Vecchione, PC, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiffs. Michael E. Patunas, Lite Depalma Greenberg Rivas, LLC, Newark, NJ, for Defendant. OPINION LIFLAND, District Judge. This case arises out of Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.'s ("Teva" or "Defendant") alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,466,823; 5,563,165; and 5,760,068 (the "patents-in-suit"), which are held by Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia

  8. Application of Merchant

    575 F.2d 865 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining the common elements

  9. Application of Holladay

    584 F.2d 384 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 5 times

    Appeal No. 78-552. October 26, 1978. William A. VanSanten, Jr., Chicago, Ill. (Wegner, Stellman, McCord, Chicago, Ill.) attys. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., Associate Sol., Victor A. Di Palma, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Court. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and FORD, Judges. The Honorable Morgan Ford, United States Customs Court, sitting

  10. Application of Tiffin

    443 F.2d 394 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8502. June 10, 1971. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellants. William T. Bullinger, Washington, D.C., Sheldon F. Raizes, Wilmington, Del. (Cushman, Darby Cushman), Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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 189 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 99 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