§

Lawrence Norman. Wallace

15605636 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2019)
Lawrence Norman. Wallace

15 Cited authorities

  1. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 262 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

  2. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 81 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  3. In re Gurley

    27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 102 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

  4. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 67 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any overlap between a claimed range and one in the prior art is sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness, even if insufficient to render it unpatentable

  5. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.

    904 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 36 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an IPR petitioner had suffered an injury in fact because it "currently operates a plant capable of infringing" the challenged patent

  6. In re Ethicon, Inc.

    844 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 23 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references is not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness"

  7. 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

  8. Application of Sponnoble

    405 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 36 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8007. January 16, 1969. Raywood H. Blanchard, Kalamazoo, Mich., (Eugene O. Retter, George T. Johannesen, Kalamazoo, Mich., of counsel) for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the examiner's rejection of the sole remaining claim in

  9. Application of Dunn

    349 F.2d 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7265. July 22, 1965. Louis C. Smith, Jr., Francis M. Fazio, New York City, Paul A. Rose, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. Appellant Dunn with one Proops obtained a series of five patents for improvements in a classic synthesis of acrylic acid esters obtained by reaction of acetylene

  10. Application of Ayers

    154 F.2d 182 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5107. March 6, 1946. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 278,027. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Joseph W. Ayers for a patent on a process of producing iron oxide. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the primary examiner's final rejection of one of the claims, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Hammond Littell, of New York City (Albert C. Johnston, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - 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)