§

Ex Parte Lakshman et al

11094505 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)
Ex Parte Lakshman et al

6 Cited authorities

  1. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood

    258 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 115 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 127, Docket 24656. Argued December 12, 1957. Decided July 1, 1958. Rehearing Denied August 18, 1958. Certiorari Denied November 10, 1958. See 79 S.Ct. 124. John Vaughan Groner, New York City (Charles B. Smith and Fish, Richardson Neave, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee. William O. Heilman, New York City (James M. Heilman, and Heilman Heilman, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for defendant-appellant. Before MEDINA, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. LUMBARD, Circuit Judge

  2. Application of Gardner

    427 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8311. June 25, 1970. Arthur R. Eglington, attorney of record for appellants, George J. Harding, 3rd, Joan S. Keps, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, Leroy B. Randall, Jack Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent

  3. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,386 times   1048 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 6,143 times   481 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  6. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)