§

Ex parte MAIER et al.

08467326 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 1998)
Ex parte MAIER et al.

14 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. National Latex Products Co. v. Sun Rubber Co

    274 F.2d 224 (6th Cir. 1960)   Cited 42 times
    Requiring a specific reference to material in an earlier application in order have that material considered part of a later application

  3. In re Nielson

    816 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 86-1692. Decided April 21, 1987. Philip A. Mallinckrodt, of Mallinckrodt Mallinckrodt, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor, and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Patent applicant Jay P. Nielson

  4. In re Self

    671 F.2d 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    Appeal No. 81-542. February 18, 1982. Rehearing Denied April 22, 1982. Roland T. Bryan, Stamford, Conn., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board)

  5. Application of Swan Wood

    582 F.2d 638 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 7 times

    Appeal No. 78-518. August 31, 1978. Donald Brown, Robert F. O'Connell, Boston, Mass., Dike, Bronstein, Roberts, Cushman Pfund, Boston, Mass., Attys. of record, for appellants; Martin P. Hoffman, Donald M. Sandler, Arlington, Va., Hoffman Sandler, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, LANE

  6. Application of Hellsund

    474 F.2d 1307 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8607. March 15, 1973. Richard E. Lyon, James W. Geriak, Thomas D. Kiley, Los Angeles, Cal., Francis D. Thomas, Jr., Washington, D.C., Lyon Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., attorneys of record, for appellant. 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 RAO, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting

  7. In re Meng

    492 F.2d 843 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 9169. March 7, 1974. Herman J. Gordon, William S. Feiler, Chicago, Ill. (Dressler, Goldsmith, Clement Gordon, Chicago, Ill.), attorneys of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming

  8. Application of Finsterwalder

    436 F.2d 1028 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8425. February 4, 1971. Quarles, Herriott, Clemons, Teschner Noelke, Milwaukee, Wis., attorneys of record, for appellant; Thomas O. Kloehn, Milwaukee, Wis., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and DURFEE, Judge, United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals

  9. Application of Yanush

    477 F.2d 958 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8951. May 17, 1973. Keith D. Beecher, Jessup Beecher, Los Angeles, Cal., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103

  10. Application of Casey

    370 F.2d 576 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7718. January 12, 1967. Charles H. Lauder, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (S. William Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. 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)

  13. Section 3.61 - Domestic representative

    37 C.F.R. § 3.61   Cited 1 times

    If the assignee of a patent, patent application, trademark application or trademark registration is not domiciled in the United States, the assignee may designate a domestic representative in a document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The designation should state the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the application, patent or registration or rights thereunder. 37 C.F.R. §3.61 67