§

Ex Parte Sowinski et al

13706277 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)
Ex Parte Sowinski et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,559 times   185 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. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 343 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  3. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc.

    935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 149 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a party who chooses not to cross-examine a witness on an issue cannot later "recoup for its failed litigation strategy"

  4. Impax v. Aventis Pharma

    545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 68 times
    Stating that defenses of obviousness and anticipation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence

  5. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

    814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 46 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "the validity of claims for which the Board did not institute inter partes review can still be litigated in district court"

  6. Laboratory Corp. of Am. v. Chiron Corp.

    384 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that Federal Circuit law applies and emphasizing "the importance of national uniformity in patent cases"

  7. In re Antor Media Corp.

    689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 32 times   5 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1465. Reexamination Nos. 90/007,839 90/007,936 90/007,942 90/007,957 90/009,261. 2012-07-27 In re ANTOR MEDIA CORPORATION. Thomas A. Lewry, Brooks Kushman, P.C., of Southfield, Michigan, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Cunningham. William Lamarca, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitor. LOURIE

  8. Carolina Tobacco v. Bur. of Customs

    402 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 19 times
    In Carolina Tobacco, we added that "[i]n considering the factors, the port director may give them whatever weight he deems appropriate; he may conclude that particular factors should be given no weight whatsoever."

  9. Western Elec. Co., Inc. v. Piezo Technology

    860 F.2d 428 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 33 times
    Finding that "[i]t is permissible under [United States v.] Morgan[, 313 U.S. 409 (1941)] and its progeny to determine from an examiner whether a party had submitted certain information, or whether specific prior art was before the examiner"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   482 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."

  11. 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)