§

Ex Parte Smith et al

11147938 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2012)
Ex Parte Smith et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 472 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  2. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 340 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  3. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v. Am. Hoist

    730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 199 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"

  4. In re Sasse

    629 F.2d 675 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when PTO cites disclosure that expressly discloses invention disclosed in patent application, applicant has the burden to show lack of an enabling disclosure

  5. In re Buchner

    929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 16 times
    Ruling that "an expert's opinion on the ultimate legal issue [of enablement] must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement."

  6. 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

  7. 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."

  8. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,941 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  9. 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)