§

ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

2020004885 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2021)
ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

14 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,574 times   189 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. Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.

    649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 718 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that both materiality and intent to deceive must be shown; each must be established by clear and convincing evidence

  3. Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc.

    984 F.2d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 285 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the context of the equitable defense of inequitable conduct, "a disputed finding of intent to mislead or to deceive is one for the judge to resolve, not the jury"

  4. Johnston v. Ivac Corp.

    885 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that Section 112 "operates to cut back on the types of means which could literally satisfy the claim language" and thereby "restricts the scope of the literal claim language" by requiring the structures to appear in the specification

  5. Refac Intern., Ld. v. Lotus Development Corp.

    81 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that presentation of a half-truth in an affidavit submitted to the PTO was inherently material

  6. 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

  7. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co.

    722 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 108 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that intentional misstatements during a "whole sequence of copending applications" were not "cured" by the kind of disclosure made to the PTO before claims were allowed

  8. Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp.

    941 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2019-1803 11-08-2019 AIRBUS S.A.S., Appellant v. FIREPASS CORPORATION, Appellee Mark Alexander Chapman, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Clifford Ulrich. Roger Thompson, The Law Offices of Roger S. Thompson, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Stoll, Circuit Judge. Mark Alexander Chapman, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Clifford Ulrich. Roger Thompson, The Law Offices of Roger S. Thompson, New York,

  9. 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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 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"

  12. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  13. 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)

  14. 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