§

Ex parte CERMINARA et al.

08111332 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 6, 1998)
Ex parte CERMINARA et al.

3 Cited authorities

  1. In re Pardo

    684 F.2d 912 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 7 times

    Appeal No. 81-619. August 5, 1982. Rene K. Pardo and Remy Landau, of Ontario, Canada, for appellants, pro se. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Jere W. Sears, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER, and NIES, Associate Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an ex parte pro se appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") affirming

  2. 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."

  3. 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)