§

Ex Parte Geller et al

09430642 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2004)
Ex Parte Geller et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix

    308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 763 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an alleged prior user's testimony for lack of corroboration when the only contemporaneous corroborating evidence offered was an unissued patent application

  2. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  3. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.

    810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that §§ 103 and 102 use the same definition of prior art

  4. In re Sang-Su Lee

    277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 105 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency tribunals "must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action"

  5. In re Robertson

    169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

  6. In re Zurko

    258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's affirmance of an examiner's obviousness rejection where the Board failed to identify "concrete evidence in the record" supporting its findings

  7. Application of Warner

    379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U

  8. In re Wilder

    429 F.2d 447 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8194. August 13, 1970. Ellsworth H. Mosher, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellant; Stevens, Davis, Miller Mosher, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and JONES, Senior Judge, United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. Wilder has appealed from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which

  9. 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."

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,991 times   1000 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. 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)