In re: Ricardo Vidal

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming Board’s refusal to permit new reply argument, which argued for a modification, when pe- tition argued for replacement, in a two-reference obvious- ness challenge
• rejecting a new theory of unpatentability where petitioner argued for the first time in its reply that a reference dis- closed a limitation
• affirming Board’s rejection of a reply argument pre- senting an “entirely new rationale” for why a claim would Case: 19-1256 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 02/21/2020 12 KINGSTON TECH. CO. v. SPEX TECHS., INC. have been obvious
• affirming the Board’s finding of no motivation to combine where the Board “credited Fry- master’s expert’s testimony that following Iwaguchi’s method of diverting and cooling the oil in Kauffman’s sys- tem would introduce ‘additional plumbing and complex- ity’”
• “Board did not abuse its discretion in holding [Petitioner] to its word and disregarding its new theory first raised in reply.”
• to be accorded substantial weight in the obviousness 26 analysis, the secondary considerations must have a nexus to the claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).