§

Ex parte Hutchins et al.

29046917 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 16, 1998)
Ex parte Hutchins et al.

4 Cited authorities

  1. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 39 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  2. In re Nalbandian

    661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved pincers

  3. In re Carter

    673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 81-593. April 1, 1982. Franklin D. Wolffe, Washington, D.C., and Thomas F. Smegal, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Harris A. Pitlick, Asst. Sol., of Washington, D.C., for the Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. NIES, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining

  4. 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."