§

Ex parte Keintzel et al.

08444389 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 21, 1998)
Ex parte Keintzel et al.

5 Cited authorities

  1. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 30 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  2. In re Laskowski

    871 F.2d 115 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    No. 88-1349. April 3, 1989. Roland A. Fuller, III, of Barnes Thornburg, Indianapolis, Indiana, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were William R. Coffey and Jerry E. Hyland, Indianapolis, Ind. John C. Martin, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before NEWMAN, ARCHER, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges

  3. 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

  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."

  5. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.142   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing requirement for restriction