§

Ex parte Cole et al.

07759691 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 1998)
Ex parte Cole et al.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil

    774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[t]he invention must be viewed not with the blueprint drawn by the inventor, but in the state of the art that existed at the time"

  2. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.

    837 F.2d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 163 times
    Holding that the burden of proof is not reduced when prior art presented to the court was not considered by the PTO

  3. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc.

    796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 145 times
    Holding that the term "smooth," in light of the intrinsic record, "means smooth enough to serve the inventor's purpose"

  4. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  5. In re Rijckaert

    9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 93-1206. November 23, 1993. Edward W. Goodman, North American Philips Corp., of Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Algy Tamoshunas. Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the

  6. In re Young

    452 F.2d 1052 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8562. January 13, 1972. R.J. Eichelburg, New York City, attorney of record, for appellants; L.C. Smith, New York City, Paul A. Rose, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office, Board of Appeals. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 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."

  8. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"