§

Sallie Piering

14550044 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2019)
Sallie Piering

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,553 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. Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.

    274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 455 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim term "portion" may be interpreted to encompass both "separate" or "integral"

  3. Nystrom v. Trex Co.

    424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 303 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the law of the regional circuit governs motions for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

  4. Randall Mfg. v. Rea

    733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 84 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

  5. Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.

    732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that 18-month sunset period was not an abuse of discretion

  6. Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag International Ltd.

    392 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "means for creating air channels" did not require a supporting structure that made multiple channels

  7. Dayco Prod. v. Total Containment, Inc.

    258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 52 times
    Finding "no reason to give 'plurality . . . of projections' any definition other than its ordinary definition of 'two or more'"

  8. In re Giannelli

    739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing affirmance of examiner's obviousness determination where the Board's analysis "contained no explanation why or how [a skilled artisan] would modify" the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention

  9. Application of Warner

    379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U

  10. Application of Wilson

    424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the court cannot ignore the specific language in a claim

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,137 times   481 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,008 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 310 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting addition of "new matter"

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  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