§

Ex Parte O et al

10757708 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)
Ex Parte O et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  2. In re Braat

    937 F.2d 589 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that while " better characterization of the relationship between the inventions is as combination/subcombination," the reasoning of Borah is applicable

  3. Application of Stephens

    345 F.2d 1020 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7394. June 9, 1965. Thomas E. Scofield, Kansas City, Mo., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, 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. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 16 and 17 in appellants' application for a "Dense Faced Laminated Structure." Serial No. 750,654

  4. Application of Johnson

    394 F.2d 591 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7956. May 16, 1968. Robert C. Baker, St. Paul, Minn. (Carpenter, Kinney Coulter, St. Paul, Minn., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for 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

  5. Application of Dilnot

    49 C.C.P.A. 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6774. April 13, 1962. Lewis D. Konigsford, Chicago, Ill., and Max Wall, Washington, D.C., of counsel, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Comr. of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section

  6. 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

  7. 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"

  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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  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)