§

Ex Parte Wetsch et al

12550330 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)
Ex Parte Wetsch et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,544 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. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.

    672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 151 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an independent claim including the limitation "magnetic member" includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting "magnetic member" to a magnet

  3. In re Giannelli

    739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing affirmance of examiner's obviousness determination where the Board's analysis "contained no explanation why or how [a skilled artisan] would modify" the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention

  4. In re Man Machine Interface Technologies LLC

    822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent examiner erred in construing "thumb switch" broadly as "merely requir[ing] that a switch . . . be capable of being enabled/activated by a thumb but . . . not preclud[ing] another digit, i.e. index finger"

  5. Application of Royka

    490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing that if an independent claim is not anticipated, its dependent claims are also not anticipated

  6. Application of Hutchison

    154 F.2d 135 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5123. March 6, 1946. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 416,334. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Miller Reese Hutchison for a patent on the process of immunizing hygroscopic sheet material against dimensional variations and on the product thereof. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming decisions of primary examiners rejecting certain product claims, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Morrison, Kennedy Campbell, of

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,120 times   473 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."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,983 times   993 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. 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"

  10. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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