§

Ex parte Lueders

08293104 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 4, 1998)
Ex parte Lueders

3 Cited authorities

  1. In re Lueders

    111 F.3d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 6 times

    No. 96-1391 Decided April 24, 1997 Appealed from: Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Serial No. 07/853,356) Ronald O. Neerings, Texas Instruments Incorporated, of Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Jay M. Cantor, Washington, DC. Joseph G. Piccolo, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor

  2. 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."

  3. 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)