§

Ex Parte Daniels et al

11179950 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2012)
Ex Parte Daniels et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re Napier

    55 F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 37 times
    Determining proper standard of review is unnecessary because board's fact finding could be affirmed under more stringent standard

  2. In re Rijckaert

    9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 93-1206. November 23, 1993. Edward W. Goodman, North American Philips Corp., of Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Algy Tamoshunas. Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the

  3. In re Grasselli

    713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    Concluding that unexpected results “limited to sodium only” were not commensurate in scope with claims to a catalyst having “an alkali metal”

  4. In re Newell

    891 F.2d 899 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    No. 89-1332. December 12, 1989. Thomas Schneck, Law Offices of Thomas Schneck, San Jose, Cal., argued for appellant. John Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. The decision of the United States Patent

  5. Application of Spormann

    363 F.2d 444 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7599. July 21, 1966. Herbert B. Keil, Matthew C. Thompson, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d)

  6. 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."

  7. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  8. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by