§

Ex parte FUSE et al.

08136241 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 1998)
Ex parte FUSE et al.

11 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. Chemicals Co. v. Carbide Corp.

    315 U.S. 668 (1942)   Cited 97 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 64

  2. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  3. In re Amos

    953 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 28 times
    Noting that error includes attorney's mistake in understanding claim scope, "one of the most common sources of defects"

  4. Application of Smythe

    480 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing circumstances in which a species may be representative of and therefore descriptive of genus claims

  5. Application of Lukach

    442 F.2d 967 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 44 times
    Recognizing that there are "anomalies between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures" and citing Hafner as an example

  6. In re Hounsfield

    699 F.2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 22 times
    Rejecting an "attempt by the Commissioner `to apply a new rationale to support the rejection.'"

  7. In re Baxter

    656 F.2d 679 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 19 times
    Explaining that "comprising" is a term of art meaning that the named elements are essential, but that other elements may be added and still form a construct

  8. Application of Blaser

    556 F.2d 534 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-694. June 9, 1977. Nelson Littell, Jr., New York City, attorney of record, for appellants; Charles A. Muserlian, New York City, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Henry W. Tarring, II, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and MILLER, Judges, and KASHIWA, Associate Judge, United States Court of Claims. KASHIWA, Judge.[fn1] [fn1] Judge

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 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

  10. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622