§

Ex parte FAIGLE et al.

08024851 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 22, 1998)
Ex parte FAIGLE et al.

5 Cited authorities

  1. In re Kaplan

    789 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 43 times
    Reversing PTO's rejection of claim for double patenting and noting that double patenting does not necessarily arise because a broad or generic claim reads on an invention defined by a narrower more specific claim in another patent

  2. Application of Vogel

    422 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a rejection of a claim in a later patent covering a method for packaging meat as obviousness-type double patenting in light of claims in an earlier patent covering a method for packaging pork

  3. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,363 times   1046 Legal Analyses
    Requiring 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

  4. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 times   2273 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  5. Section 2 - Powers and duties

    35 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 115 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Patent Office to cover the expenses of "persons" other than federal employees attending programs on intellectual-property protection