§

Ex parte KIRKLAND

08173560 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 1998)
Ex parte KIRKLAND

11 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. Application of Moreton

    288 F.2d 708 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6665. March 15, 1961. Francis C. Browne, Washington, D.C. (William E. Schuyler, Jr., Andrew B. Beveridge, Joseph A. DeGrandi, Washington, D.C., and Gerald H. Peterson, Santa Monica, Cal., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern

  3. In re Boe

    505 F.2d 1297 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 2 times
    Discussing "[t]he main motivation for combining" two prior art references

  4. Application of Fong

    288 F.2d 932 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6606. April 14, 1961. T.A. Seegrist, Washington, D.C. (R. Hoffman, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  5. 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

  6. 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."

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 times   2273 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  9. Section 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 620 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  10. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

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

  11. 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)