§

Ex parte JOHANSSON

08373069 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 3, 1998)
Ex parte JOHANSSON

17 Cited authorities

  1. Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd.

    781 F.2d 861 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 275 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although term was not limited by the specification, it was "expressly defined" in a narrow manner in the prosecution history

  2. In re Clay

    966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 88 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a reference was not reasonably pertinent where a PHOSITA "would not reasonably have expected to solve the [relevant] problem ... by considering" that reference

  3. Sjolund v. Musland

    847 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 94 times
    Reciting the "general principle" that "limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims"

  4. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.

    730 F.2d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that dependent claim "cannot be anticipated" where the independent claim "is not anticipated"

  5. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  6. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  7. In re Nielson

    816 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 86-1692. Decided April 21, 1987. Philip A. Mallinckrodt, of Mallinckrodt Mallinckrodt, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor, and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Patent applicant Jay P. Nielson

  8. In re Mulder

    716 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]here is no question that applicants complied with all the formalities required by § 119 and related PTO rules"

  9. Application of Burckel

    592 F.2d 1175 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 78-616. March 1, 1979. C. Wayne Stephens, Wilmington, Del., for appellant; Hoge T. Sutherland, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, 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. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming

  10. In re Self

    671 F.2d 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    Appeal No. 81-542. February 18, 1982. Rehearing Denied April 22, 1982. Roland T. Bryan, Stamford, Conn., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board)

  11. 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

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. 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)