§

Ex Parte Trainello

11141224 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 8, 2009)
Ex Parte Trainello

14 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,547 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. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

    463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 203 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

  3. Brown Williamson Tobacco v. Philip Morris

    229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding commercial success attributed to feature not present in the invention

  4. In re Elsner

    381 F.3d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 119 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rehearing en banc denied Nov. 23, 2004

  5. Ashland Oil, v. Delta Resins Refractories

    776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 120 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hile the opinion testimony of a party having a direct interest in the pending litigation is less persuasive than opinion testimony by a disinterested party, it cannot be disregarded for that reason alone and may be relied upon when sufficiently convincing"

  6. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  7. In re Young

    927 F.2d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 17 times
    Observing that in an obviousness inquiry, courts consider a prior art "reference for what it disclose in relation to the claimed invention."

  8. Application of LeGrice

    301 F.2d 929 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 44 times

    Patent Appeals Nos. 6727, 6728. May 4, 1962. Rehearing Denied July 11, 1962. John H. Leonard, Cleveland, Ohio (Spencer B. Michael, Smith, Michael Gardiner, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commission of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated

  9. Application of Reynolds

    443 F.2d 384 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8526. June 10, 1971. Cornelius J. O'Connor, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant; Homer R. Montague, Washington, D.C., John J. Pederson, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board

  10. In re Bager

    47 F.2d 951 (C.C.P.A. 1931)   Cited 14 times

    Patent Appeal No. 2635. March 25, 1931. Rehearing Denied April 22, 1931. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals. Application for patent by William M. Bager and others. From a decision rejecting the application, the applicants appeal. Affirmed. Hoar Ruhloff, of South Milwaukee, Wis. (Roger Sherman Hoar, of South Milwaukee, Wis., of counsel), for appellants. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM, Presiding

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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"

  14. Section 1.136 - 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)