§

Ex parte THOMPSON et al.

07696059 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 1998)
Ex parte THOMPSON et al.

3 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sernaker

    702 F.2d 989 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 73 times
    Stating that the district court could also determine whether the prior art offers a motivation to combine based on "whether a combination of the teachings of all or any of the references would have suggested (expressly or by implication) the possibility of achieving further improvement by combining such teachings along the line of the invention in suit"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."

  3. Section 103 - Use of appropriated funds

    6 U.S.C. § 103

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any report, notification, or consultation addressing directly or indirectly the use of appropriated funds and stipulated by this chapter to be submitted to, or held with, the Congress or any Congressional committee shall also be submitted to, or held with, the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives under the same conditions and with the same restrictions as stipulated by this chapter. 6 U.S.C. § 103 Pub. L.