§

Ex Parte Tomita et al

12996977 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016)
Ex Parte Tomita et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 383 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  4. Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.)

    676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 318 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”

  5. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 152 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[t]he claimed . . . parameters . . . [were] inherent properties of the obvious . . . formulation," and thus "[t]he reduced food effect was an inherent result of [a composition] even if it was previously not known in the prior art that a food effect existed"

  6. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 160 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no motivation to combine where "doctors were not using the disclosed devices and methods to heal wounds with negative pressure because they did not believe that these devices were capable of such healing"

  7. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC

    683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 51 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding entry of Rule 54(b) judgment proper with respect to Cadbury commercial products but not Cadbury experimental products

  8. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming an obviousness determination where the patentee was confronted with a limited number of options for modifying a prior art pharmaceutical composition

  9. Para-Ordnance Manufacturing, Inc. v. SGS Importers International, Inc.

    73 F.3d 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 81 times
    Explaining that "[f]rom the decision of the district court, we can, and do, accept the implicit fact-finding"

  10. In re Beattie

    974 F.2d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 63 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an alternative to a well-entrenched theory does not preclude a finding of obviousness because the recommendation of a new system "does not require obliteration of another"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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 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"

  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

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  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)