§

Ex Parte Dykstra et al

08185079 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2004)
Ex Parte Dykstra et al

7 Cited authorities

  1. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  2. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  3. In re Dow Chemical Co.

    837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 57 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the "five to six years of research that preceded the claimed invention" was entitled to fair evidentiary weight in a determination of nonobviousness

  4. Application of Kuderna

    426 F.2d 385 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8222. May 14, 1970. Frank R. LaFontaine, Emeryville, Cal., for appellant. Marion W. Western, Emeryville, Cal., of counsel. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming

  5. Application of Shuman

    361 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7616. June 16, 1966. George H. Montemayor, Howard M. Herriott, Janesville, Wis., for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 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 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