§

Ex Parte Noninski

13730870 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)
Ex Parte Noninski

16 Cited authorities

  1. In re Skvorecz

    580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times
    Finding that the phrase "at the separation" "d[id] not require further antecedent basis" because "a person skilled in the field of the invention would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the specification"

  2. 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"

  3. In re Berger

    279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to consider the merits of indefiniteness rejections not contested before the Board

  4. Newman v. Quigg

    877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claimed invention must "operate to produce what [the patentee] claims it does"

  5. In re Ziegler

    992 F.2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 17 times

    No. 91-1430. April 21, 1993. Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined June 29, 1993. Arnold Sprung, Sprung, Horn, Kramer Woods, Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were Nathaniel D. Kramer and Alan J. Grant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Adriene B. Lepiane. Paul E. Crawford and George Pazuniak, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, Wilmington, DE, were on the brief, for amicus curiae, Aristech Chemical Corp.

  6. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 29 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  7. In re Newman

    782 F.2d 971 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 12 times

    Misc. No. 89. January 13, 1986. John P. Flannery, II, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., and Thomas E. Lynch, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., for respondent. Petition from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and NEWMAN and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. ORDER NEWMAN, Circuit Judge: Joseph W. Newman petitions for writ of mandamus ordering the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate

  8. Application of Hengehold

    440 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8345. April 29, 1971. Roy F. Schaeperklaus, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, attorney of record for appellant. William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael, Bradford Gardiner, Washington, D.C., James W. Pearce, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

  9. Application of Ferens

    417 F.2d 1072 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8177. November 20, 1969. Eugene F. Buell, Buell, Blenko Ziesenheim, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Leroy Randall, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, GANEY, Judge, sitting by designation, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejections of process claims

  10. Application of Gazave

    379 F.2d 973 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7684. June 22, 1967. Albert L. Jacobs, Albert L. Jacobs, Jr., New York City, (James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of process claims 1-9 and composition claims 10-13 for

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,394 times   1049 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

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,519 times   2288 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  16. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)