§

Ex Parte Wyss et al

11121408 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)
Ex Parte Wyss et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,575 times   189 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. In re Kubin

    561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 137 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

  3. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.

    464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 138 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding based on the record that "[t]he presence of certain secondary considerations of nonobviousness are insufficient as a matter of law to overcome our conclusion that the evidence only supports a legal conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious"

  4. Princeton Biochemicals v. Beckman Coulter

    411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Characterizing the relevant inquiry as "[would] an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, confronted by the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, have selected the various elements from the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed"

  5. Application of Aller

    220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no criticality where claimed conditions allegedly contributed to roughly 20 percentage point improvement in yield

  6. In re Irmscher

    150 F.2d 705 (C.C.P.A. 1945)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5028. July 3, 1945. Appeal from Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 379,013. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Hans O. Irmscher for a patent relating to a delivery counting method and apparatus for handling articles, particularly tea balls, which issue in rapid succession from a packaging machine. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner allowing certain claims

  7. In re Scherl

    156 F.2d 72 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5163. June 11, 1946. Appeal from Board of Patent Office Appeals, Serial No. 377,275. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Egon B. Scherl for a patent relating to new and useful improvements in pressure welding process. From a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals affirming the action of the Primary Examiner in rejecting the claims of the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Charles C. Scheffler and Eugene L. Greenewald, both of New York City (Charles H. Howson

  8. In re Sola

    77 F.2d 627 (C.C.P.A. 1935)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3518. June 3, 1935. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 625,000. Application for patent by Joseph G. Sola. A decision of the Examiner rejecting the claims of the application was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, and applicant appeals. Affirmed. Fricke De Busk, of Chicago, Ill. (Leslie W. Fricke, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Wasington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,173 times   493 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."

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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"

  11. 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

  12. Section 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 52 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  13. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  14. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)

  15. Section 41.39 - Examiner's answer

    37 C.F.R. § 41.39   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)Content of examiner's answer. The primary examiner may, within such time as may be directed by the Director, furnish a written answer to the appeal brief. (1) An examiner's answer is deemed to incorporate all of the grounds of rejection set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory action and pre-appeal brief conference decision), unless the examiner's answer expressly indicates that a ground of rejection has been withdrawn. (2) An examiner's answer