§

Ex Parte Hepper

13154402 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)
Ex Parte Hepper

13 Cited authorities

  1. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  2. In re De Blauwe

    736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-513. June 8, 1984. Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Pasadena, Cal., argued for appellants. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge. JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from that part of the decision of the

  3. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  4. Application of Kronig

    539 F.2d 1300 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 18 times
    Holding no new ground of rejection when the Board relied on the same statutory basis and the same reasoning advanced by the examiner

  5. Application of Ahlert

    424 F.2d 1088 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that applicants be given “the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the assertion or the notoriety or repute of the cited reference”

  6. Application of Noznick

    391 F.2d 946 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7901. April 11, 1968. Alvin Guttag, Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of

  7. Application of Krammes

    314 F.2d 813 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6938. March 20, 1963. Richard R. Fitzsimmons, North Canton, Ohio, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 18, 19, 23 through 27 and 29 of appellant's application

  8. In re Cowles

    33 C.C.P.A. 1236 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5200. June 27, 1946. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 465,965. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Edwin Cowles for a patent on apparatus for disseminating materials in liquids. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims 4, 5, 7 and 8, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Emery, Varney, Whittemore Dix, of New York City (Nichol M. Sandoe

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,105 times   470 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 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,468 times   2251 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  11. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  12. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   28 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)

  13. 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