§

Ex Parte Zahnen et al

11380514 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2012)
Ex Parte Zahnen et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,577 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 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

  3. In re Clay

    966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 88 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a reference was not reasonably pertinent where a PHOSITA "would not reasonably have expected to solve the [relevant] problem ... by considering" that reference

  4. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  5. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.

    755 F.2d 898 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 61 times
    Finding appellants' burden of proof under section 282 to be "more easily carried" because the court did not have the benefit of the PTO's view on the validity of the references

  6. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  7. Application of Zierden

    411 F.2d 1325 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8161. June 19, 1969. Eugene F. Buell, Buell, Blenko Ziesenheim, Pittsburgh, Pa., attys. of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of record. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, DURFEE and NEESE, Judges, sitting by designation and ALMOND and BALDWIN, Associate Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming

  8. Application of Benner

    174 F.2d 938 (C.C.P.A. 1949)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5520. April 12, 1949. Rehearing Denied June 24, 1949. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 456,576. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Raymond C. Benner and another for patent on "ball mill". From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by a patent examiner of claims 17 to 24, inclusive, and 26 to 34, inclusive, the applicants appeal. Affirmed. William H. Webb, of Pittsburgh

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 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 1.136 - [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)