§
Ex Parte Arthun

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Weiler

    790 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that reissue was not permitted where a patentee failed to establish that he had unintentionally omitted subject matter from his original claims

  2. In re Serenkin

    479 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 12 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that reissue was not available where a patentee's attorney made a “conscious decision” to accept a later filing date for his application

  3. In re Bauman

    683 F.2d 405 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 2 times

    Appeal No. 82-520. July 22, 1982. Laurence H. Pretty, Los Angeles, Cal., and J.F. McLellan, Long Beach, Cal., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER, and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") affirming

  4. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,350 times   1045 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,124 times   478 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."

  6. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,990 times   998 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  7. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  8. 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"

  9. 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

  10. Section 1.175 - Inventor's oath or declaration for a reissue application

    37 C.F.R. § 1.175   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue oath or declaration requirement

  11. Section 1.77 - Arrangement of application elements

    37 C.F.R. § 1.77   Cited 8 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) The elements of the application, if applicable, should appear in the following order: (1) Utility application transmittal form. (2) Fee transmittal form. (3) Application data sheet (see § 1.76 ). (4) Specification. (5) Drawings. (6) The inventor's oath or declaration. (b) The specification should include the following sections in order: (1) Title of the invention, which may be accompanied by an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant (unless included

  12. Section 1.64 - Substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration

    37 C.F.R. § 1.64   Cited 2 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) An applicant under § 1.43 , 1.45 or 1.46 may execute a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration under § 1.63 if the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, has refused to execute the oath or declaration under § 1.63 , or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort. (b) A substitute statement under this section must: (1) Comply with the requirements of § 1.63(a) , identifying the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom a substitute statement in lieu of an