§

Ex parte LANTZ et al.

08284728 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 1998)
Ex parte LANTZ et al.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 395 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  2. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  3. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

  4. Application of Bowen

    492 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 16 times
    Describing single embodiment may enable other predictable, undisclosed embodiments, but not unpredictable ones

  5. Application of Warner

    379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U

  6. 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

  7. 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."