§

Ex Parte Whinnem et al

12419054 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)
Ex Parte Whinnem et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 111 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of validity needs to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence

  2. Acco Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc.

    813 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 31 times
    Explaining that where an "ordinary artisan would ... be left with two design choices ... [e]ach of these two design choices is an obvious combination"

  3. Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motivepower, Inc.

    636 F. App'x 575 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 8 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board failed to provide an adequate record where the "majority of [its] Final Written Decision is spent summarizing the parties' arguments and offers only conclusory analysis of its own"

  4. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc.

    725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that dependent claims fall with the independent claim on which they depend unless argued separately

  5. PlaSmart, Inc. v. Kappos

    482 F. App'x 568 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 4 times
    In PlaSmart, the Federal Circuit merely reiterated that "[its] precedent has held that drawings can be used as prior art, without referring to the surrounding description, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing," and determined that "the Board properly followed this precedent."

  6. Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos

    705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1434. 2013-01-23 REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC, Appellant, v. David J. KAPPOS, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Appellee, and Habasit Belting, Inc., Appellee. David R. Cross, Quarles & Brady, LLP, of Milwaukee, WI, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Johanna Wilbert. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and William LaMarca, Associate Solicitor. NEWMAN

  7. Fluor Tec, Corp. v. Kappos

    499 F. App'x 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

    2012-1295 12-11-2012 FLUOR TEC, CORP., Appellant, v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee, AND LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. ROBERT D. FISH, Fish & Associates, PC, of Irvine, California, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was MEI TSANG. RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee, United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were AMY J. NELSON and KRISTI

  8. In re Gal

    980 F.2d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that different structure to achieve different purpose was not an obvious design choice

  9. Application of Aslanian

    590 F.2d 911 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that in determining obviousness, all references are assessed "on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art" (quoting In re Baum , 374 F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967) )

  10. Application of Kuhle

    526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 75-602. December 4, 1975. Keith D. Beecher, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Joseph E. Nakamura, Sol., R.V. Lupo, Assoc. Sol., Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 of application serial No. 314,180, filed Dec. 11, 1972, for "Portable Moisture

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   482 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 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"

  13. 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