§

Ex parte SHAW et al.

08575830 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 1998)
Ex parte SHAW et al.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co.

    32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 67 times
    In Lantech, the district court found that a device with one conveyor literally infringed a claim with the term "comprising at least two conveyor means."

  2. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.

    730 F.2d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that dependent claim "cannot be anticipated" where the independent claim "is not anticipated"

  3. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  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 Ludtke

    441 F.2d 660 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8513. May 6, 1971. John O. Tresansky, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Edward E. Kubasiewicz, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and SKELTON, Judge, Customs Court, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1-7 of appellants'

  6. Application of Venezia

    530 F.2d 956 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-601. March 11, 1976. Donald R. Dunner, Lane, Aitken, Dunner Ziems, Washington, D.C., atty. of record, for appellant; S. Michael Bender, Richard A. Craig, New York City, Arthur Jacob, Hackensack, N. Y., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Thomas E. Lynch, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This

  7. Application of Fenton

    451 F.2d 640 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8546. November 11, 1971. Robert E. Strauss, Brea, Cal., attorney of record, for appellant. Milton W. Lee, Brea, Cal., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection

  8. APPLICATION OF BARR

    444 F.2d 588 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that the court should give the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification

  9. Application of Hunter

    288 F.2d 930 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6655. March 15, 1961. Rehearing Denied May 5, 1961. Morrison, Kennedy Campbell, New York City (Luther E. Morrison and Willis B. Rice, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. William Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated

  10. Application of Richards

    187 F.2d 643 (C.C.P.A. 1951)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5726. February 27, 1951. Charles R. Fay, Worcester, Mass. (Munson H. Lane, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth D. Richards, pro se. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. JOHNSON, Judge. One claim of appellant's application for a patent for a compensating pattern control device for a shotgun was allowed by the Primary Examiner, but four were rejected as unpatentable

  11. 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

  12. 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."

  13. 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"