Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Ex parte USUI et al.

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  2. In re Piasecki

    745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem

  3. Application of Rinehart

    531 F.2d 1048 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 45 times
    Considering the problem to be solved in a determination of obviousness

  4. Application of Wiechert

    370 F.2d 927 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 51 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7636. January 19, 1967. Michael S. Striker, New York City, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 of application serial No. 98,026, filed March 24, 1961, for "1a-Methyl Steroids." Claims

  5. In re Hedges

    783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Proceeding against accepted wisdom is evidence of unobviousness

  6. In re Queener

    796 F.2d 461 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    Appeal No. 85-2084. July 21, 1986. Charles E. Rohrer, Intern. Business Machines Corp., Boulder, Colo., argued, for appellant. With him on brief was Elliott Pollack, Pollack, Vande Sande and Priddy, Washington, D.C. John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before

  7. Application of Lundberg

    244 F.2d 543 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6239. May 7, 1957. E. Clarkson Seward, New York City, for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Com'r of Patents. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, rejecting claims 51 and 54-58, the only remaining claims in appellants' application for "Apparatus for and Method

  8. 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."

  9. 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

  10. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"