green
Positive treatment
Trending · 121 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 17×
49.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…he 'analogous art' test . . . has long been part of the primary graham analysis articulated by the supreme court.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2018 ·
…he teaching of is not limited to the specific invention disclosed.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…he teaching of the . . . reference is not limited to the specific invention dis- closed.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conelusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Alza Corporation v. Mylan Laboratories
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he 'motivation-suggesting-teaeh-ing' requirement protects against the entry of hindsight into the obviousness analysis.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lkq Corporation v. Gm Global Technology Operations LLC
he 'analogous art' test . . . has long been part of the primary graham analysis articulated by the supreme court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lkq Corporation v. Gm Global Technology Operations LLC
he 'analogous art' test . . . has long been part of the primary graham analysis articulated by the supreme court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he teaching of the . . . reference is not limited to the specific invention dis- closed.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he teaching of the . . . reference is not limited to the specific invention dis- closed.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Apple Inc. v. voip-pal.com, Inc.
ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; in- stead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of ob- viousness.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
here must be some 3 articulated reasoning with some rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of 4 obviousness.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: Conrad
he skilled artisan need not be motivated to combine for the same reason contemplated by the
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: Theresa
he teaching of is not limited to the specific invention disclosed.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Agri-Labs Holding LLC v. Taplogic, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: Stepan Company
(2×)
o establish a pri-ma facie case of obviousness based on a combination of elements disclosed in' the prior art, the board must articulate the basis on which it concludes that it would have been obvious to make the claimed invention.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Youqing Zhang
he teaching of is not limited to the specific invention disclosed.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Nouvel
ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclu- sory statements; instead, there must be some articulated in re nouvel 14 reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
a refer- ence may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Vaidyanathan
ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there 19 in re vaidyanathan must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obvious- ness.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Natural Alternatives, LLC
To satisfy this burden, the Board must explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the prior art to be “reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
I/P Engine, Inc. v. Aol Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Here, in support of its finding of a “strong prima facie case of obviousness,” the majority concludes that “retaining the query for use in filtering combined content and collaborative data was entirely predictable and grounded in common sense.” Majority Op. at 989, 992 (internal quotations omitted). 2 The use of the query is a matter of common sense, the majority explains, “[bjecause the query was readily available and closely correlated to the overall relevance of search results.” Id. at 989.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Intouch Technologies, Inc. v. Vgo Communications, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A reason for combining disparate prior art references is a critical component of an obviousness analysis; “this analysis should be made explicit.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 , 127 S.Ct. 1727 (arguments need to provide an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to make the asserted combinations) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.). “[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does ... because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely u…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Kali Laboratories, Inc.
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87; In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed.Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In other words, a pri-ma facie case of obviousness requires the party to “explain the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the references and to combine them to render the claimed invention obvious.” Id. at 986 (internal quotations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir.2006) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In considering motivation in an obviousness analysis, we ask “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination recited in the claims.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Janssen Pharmaceutica N v. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals., Inc.
(2×)
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986. a.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Technology, Inc.
(2×)
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Npf, Ltd. v. Smart Parts, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Such testimony does not address the central question in the motivation to combine inquiry — “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art ... would have been led to make the combination recited in the claims.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kerri Schwegel v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Id.; see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 985 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 990-91 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Inre: Biedermann
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational *336 underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Vaidyanathan
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 , 127 S.Ct. 1727 , citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
cited
Cited "see"
Henrob Ltd. v. Böllhoff Systemtechnick GmbH & Co.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Allan Block Corp. v. County Materials Corp.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 990-91 (Fed.Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Patent Category Corp. v. Target Corp.
See Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“[Tjhere must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rogers v. Desa International, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 987-88 (Fed.Cir. 2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 990 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 990 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States
The government has only established that there was a motivation to increase performance in small-arms ammunition, which is “entirely different from [a] motivation to combine particular references.” Innogenetics, 512 F.3d at 1373 (“[K]nowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references.”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“[The test for obviousness] asks ... whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated b…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 , 127 S.Ct. 1727 (stating that it is error to look “only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 990 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“[T]he skilled artisan need not be motivated to combine [the prior art] for the same reason contemplated by [the inventor].” (citing In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“[T]he law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”))); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.
See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sabasta v. Buckaroos, Inc.
For each of the claims that he analyzes for obviousness, Dr. Patterson merely lists a number of prior art references and then concludes with the stock phrase “to one skilled in the art it would have been obvious to perform the genotyping method in [claims 1-9 & 12-13] of the '704 patent.” “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 , 127 S.Ct. 1727 , 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007) (“To facilitate review, this a…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Tzipori
“To facilitate review, this [obviousness] analysis should be made explicit.” Id. at 1741; see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bally Gaming, Inc. v. Igt
Id. at 1741. “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006); see also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741 (“To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.”) (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shuffle Master, Inc. v. MP GAMES LLC
Id. at 1741. “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., — U.S. —, —, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 , 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007) (“To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.”) (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Innogenetics, N v. v. Abbott Laboratories
For each of the claims that he analyzes for obviousness, Dr. Patterson merely lists a number of prior art references and then concludes with the stock phrase “to one skilled in the art it would have been obvious to perform the genotyping method in [claims 1-9 & 12-13] of the '704 patent.” 2 “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 , 988 (Fed.Cir.2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 , 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007) (“To facilitate review,…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology
WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed.Cir.1999); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Leonard R. Kahn
2004-1616.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mar 22, 2006.
Published
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
ERRATA
March 29, 2006
Appeal No. 04-1616, In Re Kahn
Precedential Opinion
Decided: March 22, 2006
Page 18, footnote 4, “Spinnoble” should be spelled “Sponnoble.”