KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

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"

Phillips v. AWH Corp.

Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

Graham v. John Deere Co.

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd.

Holding that specific examples in the specification provided "points of comparison" that helped form an objective standard of the claim's scope

Edwards Lifesciences v. Cook

Holding that "graft" was to be construed more narrowly as "intraluminal graft" because the only devices described in the specification were intraluminal and because the specification repeatedly referred to intraluminal grafts as "the present invention"

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.

Holding that claim language that required heating "dough to a temperature in the range of about 400° F. to 850° F." meant exactly what the ordinary meaning suggested even though all agreed that heating dough itself — rather than the oven — to that temperature would burn the dough to a crisp and leave it as inedible as a "charcoal briquet"

W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

Winner Intern. Royalty Corp. v. Wang

Holding that "the admission of live testimony on all matters before the Board in a section 146 action, as in this case, makes a factfinder of the district court and requires a de novo trial"

Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.

Holding that there is no duty to disclose a mere "conception" because it is not material

Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.

Holding that petitioner failed to carry its burden of proving public accessibility of the allegedly invalidating reference

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

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."

Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Section 1 - Establishment

Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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"

Section 318 - Decision of the Board

Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

Section 42.1 - Policy

Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"