§

Ex parte DESUTTER

08248307 - (D) (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 1998)
Ex parte DESUTTER

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  5. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 30 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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."

  9. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.142   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing requirement for restriction

  10. 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"