Legal Opinion
In Re Hiniker Co.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided July 21, 1998No. 97-1408PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
Hiniker’s claims in this appeal from a reexamination proceeding are directed toward a row unit of a row crop cultivator, a farm implement. The Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) affirmed an examiner’s rejection of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because we hold that the Board’s actions were consistent with the reexamination statute, and we agree that the invention as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, we affirm.
I
The reexamination proceeding involved U.S. Patent No. 4,834,189 (the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- In Re Yujiro Yamamoto, and Dictaphone Corp., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- In Re Charles P. Morris, Kenneth L. Pottebaum, and John D. StricklinCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- In Re Portola Packaging, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.