§

Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.

12031460 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)
Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   169 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. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,154 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Wyers v. Master Lock Co.

    616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 205 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success exist when "it is simply a matter of common sense" to combine known elements of the prior art to solve a known problem

  4. Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.

    569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 102 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding claimed method obvious where all but one limitation disclosed in single prior art reference, and the "advantages" of the additional limitation, pressure of "at least 50 psi," "were known"

  5. Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.

    950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 134 times
    Holding on summary judgment that the claimed invention was obvious, despite "assuming] that a nexus existed," because "secondary considerations did not carry sufficient weight to override a determination of obviousness based on primary considerations"

  6. In re Clay

    966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 87 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

  7. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  8. In re Klein

    647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2010-1411. June 6, 2011. Louis W. Tompros, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Larissa B. Park and Katherine B. Dirks. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Robert J. McManus, Associate Solicitor. Before, NEWMAN, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges. SCHALL, Circuit Judge. Arnold

  9. Okajima v. Bourdeau

    261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing how the prior art typically informs the question of the level of one of ordinary skill

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,056 times   449 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."

  11. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   625 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  12. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 276 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

  14. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 159 times   137 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  15. Section 42.1 - Policy

    37 C.F.R. § 42.1   Cited 21 times   29 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. Part 42 governs proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sections 1.4 , 1.7 , 1.14 , 1.16 , 1.22 , 1.23 , 1.25 , 1.26 , 1.32 , 1.34 , and 1.36 of this chapter also apply to proceedings before the Board, as do other sections of part 1 of this chapter that are incorporated by reference into this part. (b)Construction. This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. (c)Decorum. Every party must act with courtesy and decorum

  16. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 17 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  17. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,