35 U.S.C. § 103
Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if 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 filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,927
cases (402 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Patent 4,687,777 was not shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd.”
Intercontinental Great Brands v. Kellogg North Am. Co., 869 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “1 The district court granted Kellogg’s motion for sum- mary judgment of invalidity of all of the asserted claims (1, 3, 4, 6, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 42) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006). 2 As the patent itself makes clear, the “frame” element is shown by prior art, such…”
Interconnect Plan. Corp. v. Thomas E. Feil, Robert O. Carpenter, v Band Sys., Inc., & Turret Equip. Corp., 774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “We vacate the summary judgment of invalidity and dismissal of the infringement count, and remand to the district court.”
Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “4,006,770 (the ’770 patent), owned by Newell, were proved invalid for obviousness under the standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1982), the district court granted Kenney’s reserved motion for directed verdict and entered judgment for Kenney on that issue holding claims 1, 2, 6 and 7…”
Loctite Corp., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Ultraseal Ltd., Appellees/cross-Appellants, 781 F.2d 861 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “A final rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was made, the PTO Board of Appeals (Board) affirmed the rejection, and this Court affirmed the Board.”
Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “(collectively, “Galder- ma”) are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . We find that the district court erred in finding the claims of the assert- ed patents not invalid as obvious.”
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. The United States, 717 F.2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “On January 10, 1966, the examiner rejected all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as un-patentable over earlier cited art and newly cited U.”
Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-Appellant, 725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “49(b), stating that each claim was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and for “fraud on the Patent Office.”
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “§ 102 (b); for obviousness, 35 U.S.C. § 103 ; or because the claims were indefinite, 35 U.”
Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson & Pers. Prods. Co., 745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “3,672,371 (’371) issued June 27, 1972, for “Sanitary Napkin with Improved Adhesive Fastening Means” was not infringed, “unenforceable” because of “fraud on the PTO,” and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . We affirm the holding of non-infringement, reverse the holdings of…”
Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enter., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “On the issue of invalidity, the district court determined that there existed no genuine issue of material fact as to the obviousness of the asserted claims over the four prior art references asserted by Easton: U.”
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “By statute, a claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art “are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”
— 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) — 6 cases
Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Kan. 2009).
LAMPI, LLC v. Am. Power Prods., Inc., 65 F. Supp. 2d 757 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
In Re Scroggie, 442 F. App'x 547 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In Re: Lemay, 660 F. App'x 919 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
— 35 U.S.C. § 103(b)(1) — 1 case
Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.