§

PAULSON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

2020003220 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)
PAULSON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

23 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bigio

    381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 71 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Affirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"

  2. 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

  3. Donner Tech. v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC

    979 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Remanding because it was "unclear whether the Board meaningfully considered all of [petitioner's] arguments and evidence"

  4. Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.

    795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding testimony that third parties were "worried" or "surprised" was sufficient to establish skepticism

  5. In re Klein

    647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 19 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

  6. Badasa v. Mukasey

    540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding Wikipedia was not a sufficiently reliable source on which to rest a determination of asylum

  7. Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage Ab

    766 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 8 times

    Nos. 2013–1219 2013–1220 2013–1221. 2014-09-10 SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. BIOTAGE AB, Appellee. Frederick C. Laney, Niro, Haller & Niro, of Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Paul K. Vickrey. Of counsel on the brief was David M. Quinlan, David M. Quinlan, P.C., of Princeton, NJ. George C. Beck, Foley & Lardner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Michael R. Houston, of Chicago, IL, and Debra D. Nye, of San Diego,

  8. 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"

  9. In re Mraz

    455 F.2d 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times
    Explaining that features that patent drawings "show clearly" can be sufficient to establish anticipation, especially when they are the focus of the figure and shown "with great particularity," but distinguishing a case where the patent drawing at issue was "obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything"

  10. In re Mlot-Fijalkowski

    676 F.2d 666 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 81-597. April 15, 1982. Otto R. Krause, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Henry W. Tarring, II, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for the Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the examiner's rejection of claims

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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 188 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 1.56 - Duty to disclose information material to patentability

    37 C.F.R. § 1.56   Cited 865 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Adopting broad standard of materiality requiring that information not be cumulative

  15. Section 1.98 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Content of information disclosure statement

    37 C.F.R. § 1.98   Cited 42 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring an applicant to provide the "date" for each publication listed in an IDS

  16. Section 1.97 - [Effective 1/19/2025] Filing of information disclosure statement

    37 C.F.R. § 1.97   Cited 40 times   20 Legal Analyses

    (a) In order for an applicant for a patent or for a reissue of a patent to have an information disclosure statement in compliance with § 1.98 considered by the Office during the pendency of the application, the information disclosure statement must satisfy one of paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section and be accompanied by any applicable information disclosure statement size fee under § 1.17(v) . (b) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant

  17. 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

  18. 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)

  19. 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