§

Ex Parte Sexton et al

11541340 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2010)
Ex Parte Sexton et al

6 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Weber

    405 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8090. February 6, 1969. Harry Goldsmith, Bryant W. Brennan, Joseph G. Kolodny, Summit, N.J. (A. Ponack, Wenderoth, Lind Ponack, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the final rejection of claims

  2. Application of Spence

    261 F.2d 244 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6387. December 1, 1958. Mitchell Bechert, New York City, (Fred J. Bechert and John M. Calimafde, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges. RICH, Judge. Appellant asks us to reverse the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirms the final rejection of a single claim of his application

  3. Application of Reid

    179 F.2d 998 (C.C.P.A. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5647. Argued November 8, 1949. Decided February 2, 1950. Willard L. Pollard, Jr., Akron, Ohio (Charles M. Thomas, Washington, D.C., and Bernard C. Frye, Akron, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, and JOHNSON, Associate Judges. JACKSON, Judge. Appellant appealed from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming that of the Primary

  4. In re Michalek

    161 F.2d 253 (C.C.P.A. 1947)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5270 March 25, 1947. Rehearing Denied May 16, 1947. Appeal from Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 387,862. Proceeding in the Matter of the Application of John C. Michalek for a patent directed to a group of six isomeric forms of a type of chemical compound. From a decision of Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Examiner of the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Pennie, Edmonds, Morton Barrows

  5. 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."

  6. 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)