Ex Parte Shao

5 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,568 times 187 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"
Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 264 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
In re Longi
759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 107 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,159 times 489 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 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"

Ex Parte Shao

5 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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"

Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

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

In re Longi

Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

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

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"