§

Ex parte LOC et al.

08380223 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 1998)
Ex parte LOC et al.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 482 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

  2. In re Soni

    54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "substantially improved results" to overcome obviousness when the 50-fold improvement in tensile strength was much greater than would have been predicted

  3. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  4. In re Piasecki

    745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem

  5. In re De Blauwe

    736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-513. June 8, 1984. Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Pasadena, Cal., argued for appellants. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge. JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from that part of the decision of the

  6. In re Murch

    464 F.2d 1051 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8743. August 24, 1972. Rehearing Denied October 19, 1972. Edwin Tocker, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record for appellant; Gerald A. Hapka, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and CLARK, Justice (Ret.), United States Supreme Court, sitting by designation. LANE

  7. In re Fenn

    639 F.2d 762 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 80-583. January 8, 1981. William A. Skinner, Painesville, Ohio, and John W. Schneller, Washington, D.C., with whom Keil and Witherspoon, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Henry W. Tarring, II, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from The Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from

  8. 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."

  9. Section 3.11 - Documents which will be recorded

    37 C.F.R. § 3.11   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Assignments of applications, patents, and registrations, and other documents relating to interests in patent applications and patents, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in § 3.28 and § 3.31 , will be recorded in the Office. Other documents, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in § 3.28 and § 3.31 , affecting title to applications, patents, or registrations, will be recorded as provided in this part or at the discretion of the Director. (b) Executive Order 9424