§
L'OREAL

18 Cited authorities

  1. Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm

    492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 153 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the invention not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have selected for further investigation

  2. Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's

    533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 106 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a chemical compound non-obvious where the invention at issue replaced a more lipophilic substituent with a less lipophilic substituent in contravention of the prior art's teaching that lipophilicity at a particular position on a ring structure conferred beneficial results

  3. Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.

    655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 89 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to find a claim obvious when the when prior art does not provide "indication of which parameters were critical" or "direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful"

  4. Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

    566 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 82 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Denying Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction

  5. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner

    778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 130 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim

  6. Daiichi Sankyo v. Matrix Lab

    619 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 35 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming district court's finding that asserted claims were not obvious under structural obviousness analysis because defendant failed to demonstrate POSA would have chosen compounds as lead compounds

  7. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  8. In re Deuel

    51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 52 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Commenting that scholars have been critical of Deuel, which "overly favored patent applicants in biotech by adopting an overly lax nonobviousness standard." ( citing Anita Varma David Abraham, DNA Is Different: Legal Obviousness and the Balance Between Biotech Inventors and the Market, 9 Harv. J.L. Tech. 53 (1996))

  9. Application of Wilder

    563 F.2d 457 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 17 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-706. October 13, 1977. Ellsworth H. Mosher, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellant, Edward P. Grattan, St. Louis, Mo., Richard O. Zerbe, Akron, Ohio, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the April 30, 1976 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board)

  10. Application of Gyurik

    596 F.2d 1012 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 78-615. April 12, 1979. Stuart R. Suter, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, and MILLER, Judges. Judge Lane took no part in the decision in this matter. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  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)

  16. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and