§

Ex parte Bradbury

08786741 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 1998)
Ex parte Bradbury

10 Cited authorities

  1. City of Belleville v. Doe

    523 U.S. 1001 (1998)   Cited 74 times
    Finding it to be an "obvious inference" that if the plaintiff had not been a man, his co-workers would not have questioned his gender for wearing an earring

  2. UMC Electronics Co. v. United States

    484 U.S. 1025 (1988)   Cited 80 times

    No. 87-515. January 19, 1988. C.A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 816 F. 2d 647.

  3. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems v. Westrock

    997 F.2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that "there is no hidden portion" of a patented block even though "it ceases to be visible as a block when incorporated in a wall" because "[a]s a block, all parts of it are visible"

  4. UMC Electronics Co. v. United States

    816 F.2d 647 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 106 times
    Stating the on-sale bar "does not lend itself to formulation into a set of precise requirements"

  5. Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track & Court Construction

    98 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 46 times
    Reversing summary judgment because material questions existed, including whether evaluation of product — once it had been installed and was in use at customer's facilities — was reasonably necessary

  6. Micro Chemical v. Great Plains Chemical

    103 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that an evaluation of a challenged invention for obviousness "must involve more than indiscriminately combining prior art"

  7. Kolmes v. World Fibers Corporation

    107 F.3d 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 42 times
    Holding testing for durability established experimental use because, based on "the preamble of claim 1 [of the patent]," an "inherent feature" of the invention is "the ability to withstand use in an environment such as a meat-packing plant with repeated laundering"

  8. Robotic Vision Sys. v. View Eng., Inc.

    112 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times
    Finding sufficient disclosure because the functions required for software to instruct the computer to control the machine are apparent from the specification to one of ordinary skill in the art

  9. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    124 F.3d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 17 times

    No. 96-1150, 96-1187 DECIDED: September 8, 1997 Rehearing Denied October 3, 1997 Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Senior Judge Sanders. Barry L. Grossman Banner Allegretti, Ltd. of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff/cross-appellant. With him on the brief were Pamela I. Banner, Adriana S. Luedke, and Bradley C. Wright. James D. Hall, Baker Daniels, of South Bend, Indiana, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were David C. Read and Robert D

  10. 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"