§
Ex Parte Merdan

13 Cited authorities

  1. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 264 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims at issue as indefinite because they simultaneously claimed an apparatus and method steps

  2. All Dental Prodx v. Advantage Dental Products

    309 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 164 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding disclaimer of shape where applicant distinguished over prior art by explaining that shape found in prior art was not shape in the claimed invention

  3. Application of Kuehl

    475 F.2d 658 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 23 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8815. March 22, 1973. James F. Woods, New York City, attorney of record for appellant. Oswald G. Hayes, Raymond W. Barclay, New York City, John F. Witherspoon, Arlington, Va. (Stevens, Davis, Miller Mosher), Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is

  4. Application of Steele

    305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  5. Application of Rishoi

    197 F.2d 342 (C.C.P.A. 1952)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming the "refusal to allow claim based upon an unequivocal admission in appellants' specification of what was old and well known in the art"

  6. In re Smith

    17 C.C.P.A. 644 (C.C.P.A. 1929)   Cited 17 times

    Patent Appeal No. 2169. December 19, 1929. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents. Application for patent by Jesse A.B. Smith. From a decision rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. See also 36 F.2d 303. Burnham C. Stickney, of New York City (L.H. Campbell, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges. GRAHAM, Presiding Judge. The appellant

  7. Rubber Company v. Goodyear

    76 U.S. 788 (1869)   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a process and the resulting product are new, both are separately patentable: "Patentability may exist as to either, neither, or both, according to the fact of novelty, or the opposite. The patentability, or the issuing of a patent as to one, in nowise affects the rights of the inventor or discoverer in respect to the other"

  8. 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

  9. 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."

  10. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,493 times   2273 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  11. 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"

  12. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  13. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing