Ex parte WEISSENBERGER et al.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

    750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 242 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding of enablement is not precluded even if some experimentation is necessary, although the amount of experimentation needed must not be unduly extensive
  2. Martin v. Johnson

    454 F.2d 746 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Johnson, the examiner rejected applicant's claims directed to substituted diphenyl ether compounds as "structurally obvious" over compounds disclosed in two separate prior art references.
  3. Application of Gaubert

    524 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-574. November 13, 1975. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, R. V. Lupo, Associate Solicitor, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Associate Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. ALMOND, Senior Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals affirming the rejections of claims 1 and 2

  4. 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