§

Ex Parte Silvernail et al

13323926 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)
Ex Parte Silvernail et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 263 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

  2. Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.

    550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 212 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party that sells or offers to sell software containing instructions to perform the patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271

  3. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 84 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  4. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 68 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any overlap between a claimed range and one in the prior art is sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness, even if insufficient to render it unpatentable

  5. Velander v. Garner

    348 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reviewing the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' finding of a reasonable expectation of success under a "substantial evidence" standard

  6. Yorkey v. Diab

    601 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 29 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board is "well within its discretion" to give more or less credibility to expert testimony unless "no reasonable trier of fact could have done so"

  7. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.

    469 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 31 times
    Affirming the district court's holding of invalidity despite the court's statement that “[t]here is no indication that the [motivation to combine] was non-obvious,” because the district court's opinion as a whole indicated it “correctly allocated the burden of proof”

  8. In re Daniels

    144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 23 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 97-1225 May 20, 1998 Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Serial No. 29/020,787) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. S. Michael Bender, S. Michael Bender, P.A., of Gulfport, Florida, argued for appellant. Karen A. Buchanan, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, and Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor. William T. Fryer

  9. In re Chupp

    816 F.2d 643 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 16 times
    Considering improved properties as selective herbicide

  10. Application of Greenfield

    571 F.2d 1185 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times
    Finding evidence of secondary considerations was not commensurate with the scope of the claims where evidence related to only one compound and there was no adequate basis to conclude that other compounds included within the scope of the claims would behave in the same manner

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,144 times   481 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 186 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 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

  14. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  15. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)