§

Ex parte Grinkus et al.

29038982 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 23, 1998)
Ex parte Grinkus et al.

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  2. In re Zahn

    617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 18 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a design embodied in a shank portion of a drill was patentable

  3. Application of Gyurik

    596 F.2d 1012 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 78-615. April 12, 1979. Stuart R. Suter, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, and MILLER, Judges. Judge Lane took no part in the decision in this matter. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)

  4. Application of Cooper

    254 F.2d 611 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding trademark office's refusal to register a book title as a trademark, but noting that "the rights in book titles are afforded appropriate protection under the law of unfair competition"

  5. Application of Phillips

    315 F.2d 943 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6964. April 25, 1963. Rehearing Denied June 3, 1963. K. Wilson Corder, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of application Ser. No. 56,274, filed June 8, 1959, for a design patent on a "Telephone

  6. 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

  7. Section 171 - Patents for designs

    35 U.S.C. § 171   Cited 333 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Protecting "any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ...."

  8. Section 1.153 - Title, description and claim, oath or declaration

    37 C.F.R. § 1.153   Cited 46 times   11 Legal Analyses
    In 37 C.F.R. 1.153, old rule 81 was incorporated, specifying that the title of the design designate the particular article, and more particularly showing that the claim is to the design for the article as shown and described.

  9. 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)