§

Refined Technologies, Inc.

IPR2019-01540 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2020)
Refined Technologies, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,545 times   185 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. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 157 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no motivation to combine where "doctors were not using the disclosed devices and methods to heal wounds with negative pressure because they did not believe that these devices were capable of such healing"

  3. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.

    821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 120 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding a reply brief and declaration exceeded the proper scope for a reply because they cited "a number of non-patent literature references which were not relied upon to support unpatentability in the Petition"

  4. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 144 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  5. Randall Mfg. v. Rea

    733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of non-obviousness where court “narrowly focus[ed] on the four prior-art references” and ignored record evidence of “the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art” to explain motivation to combine or modify references

  6. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. the Toro Co.

    848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the obviousness argument of a party seeking to avoid a preliminary injunction where the party did not provide any evidence as to a motivation to combine prior art references

  7. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

    829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 60 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory statements that "[t]he same analysis" applied to different prior art did not provide sufficient evidence to base its legal conclusion of obviousness

  8. Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels

    812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 59 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding no motivation to modify the prior art where doing so "would destroy the basic objective" of the prior art

  9. 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"

  10. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.

    840 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 80 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to award fees based on lack of documentation when counsel failed to keep contemporaneous time records, but furnished affidavits and corroborative business records

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,121 times   477 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 1.97 - 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 paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section. (b) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant within any one of the following time periods: (1) Within three months of the filing date of

  13. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A

  14. Section 42.22 - Content of petitions and motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.22   Cited 14 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a) Each petition or motion must be filed as a separate paper and must include: (1) A statement of the precise relief requested; and (2) A full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent. (b)Relief requested. Where a rule in part 1 of this title ordinarily governs the relief sought, the petition or motion must make any showings required under that rule