§

Ex parte BIERINGER et al.

07759478 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 1998)
Ex parte BIERINGER et al.

15 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  2. In re Fracalossi

    681 F.2d 792 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 21 times
    Addressing whether specific anticipation rejection was sufficient evidentiary support for obviousness rejection

  3. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  4. In re Nielson

    816 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 86-1692. Decided April 21, 1987. Philip A. Mallinckrodt, of Mallinckrodt Mallinckrodt, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor, and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Patent applicant Jay P. Nielson

  5. Application of Malagari

    499 F.2d 1297 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding prima facie obviousness where the claimed range of the prior art reference (0.020–0.035% carbon) overlapped the claimed range (0.030–0.070% carbon)

  6. In re Kalm

    378 F.2d 959 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 16 times
    Reversing anticipation rejection

  7. In re Herz

    537 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" permits some additional elements, but excludes additional unspecified materials or steps that would "materially affect the basic and novel characteristic" of the claimed invention

  8. Application of Dailey

    479 F.2d 1398 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8936. June 28, 1973. Edward J. DaRin, John P. Grinnell, Christie, Parker Hale, Pasadena, Cal., John A. Finken, Wynne Finken, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., John W. Will, Classification Division, U.S. Patent Office, of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge

  9. In re de Lajarte

    337 F.2d 870 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7237. November 5, 1964. John L. Seymour, Bauer Seymour, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (George C. Roeming, 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

  10. Application of Janakirama-Rao

    317 F.2d 951 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6997. June 10, 1963. Donald S. Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Jr., Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of application Ser. No. 534,529, filed September 15, 1955, for "Cadmium-Bismuth

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 times   479 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  15. 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)