4 Cited authorities
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,570 times 188 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Stevenson v. Pemberton
1 U.S. 3 (1760) Cited 1 timesAPRIL TERM, 1760. WILLIAM, ALLEN, Chief Justice. LAWRENCE GROWDEN, WILLIAM COLEMAN, Justice. SCIRE facias against Defendant as Garnishee. The Cafe was; C. in the West-Indies was indebted to P. the Defendant, for Bills of Exchange drawn by C, in Favour of P. which were protested. P. by Letter solicits C. for Security. C. consigns a Quantity of Rum to P. and by Letter directs P. to sell the same for his (C's) Account, and apply the Proceeds to the Payment of some protested Bills drawn by C. in favour
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,166 times 492 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 41.52 - Rehearing
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 Cited 7 times 9 Legal Analyses(a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by