10 Cited authorities
In re Wands
858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 341 times 43 Legal AnalysesHolding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."
Doyle v. Commissioner of Patents
416 U.S. 935 (1974) Cited 20 timesNo. 73-833. April 15, 1974. C. C. P. A. (Pat.) Certiorari denied. Reported below: 482 F. 2d 1385.
Application of Marzocchi
439 F.2d 220 (C.C.P.A. 1971) Cited 42 timesInvolving the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
In re Strahilevitz
668 F.2d 1229 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 9 timesAppeal No. 81-563. January 15, 1982. J. Philip Polster, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. The decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") sustaining the rejection of claims 36-48 as unsupported by an adequate disclosure required
Martin v. Johnson
454 F.2d 746 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 15 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Johnson, the examiner rejected applicant's claims directed to substituted diphenyl ether compounds as "structurally obvious" over compounds disclosed in two separate prior art references.
Application of Eynde
480 F.2d 1364 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 11 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 8934. July 19, 1973. Alfred W. Breiner, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Robert D. Edmonds, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals, Serial No. 471,437. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration
Application of Doyle
482 F.2d 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 7 timesPatent Appeal No. 9139. August 30, 1973. Henry M. Bissell (Bissell Dalgarn), Los Angeles, Cal., Donald D. Jeffery, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims
Application of Gaubert
524 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 75-574. November 13, 1975. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, R. V. Lupo, Associate Solicitor, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Associate Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. ALMOND, Senior Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals affirming the rejections of claims 1 and 2
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,363 times 1046 Legal AnalysesRequiring 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
Section 371 - National stage: Commencement
35 U.S.C. § 371 Cited 52 times 81 Legal AnalysesReferring to the "requirements" in specific "subsection"