§

Ex parte JUERGENS et al.

08235332 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 1998)
Ex parte JUERGENS et al.

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  2. Hazani v. U.S. Intern. Trade Comm

    126 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that claim is not product-by-process claim if it "describes the product more by its structure than by the process used to obtain it"

  3. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  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 Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  6. Application of Ludtke

    441 F.2d 660 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8513. May 6, 1971. John O. Tresansky, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Edward E. Kubasiewicz, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and SKELTON, Judge, Customs Court, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1-7 of appellants'

  7. Application of Fitzgerald

    619 F.2d 67 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    Appeal No. 79-620. April 3, 1980. Thomas H. Jones, Los Angeles, Cal., atty. of record, for appellant; George F. Smyth, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and MILLER, Associate Judges, and FORD, Judge. The Honorable Morgan Ford, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.

  8. Application of Glass

    474 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8787. February 22, 1973. John F.A. Earley, Philadelphia, Pa., James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,997 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. 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)