§

Ex parte WILK et al.

08098165 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 1998)
Ex parte WILK et al.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S

    108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 346 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement

  2. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm LTD

    52 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even though the defendant's experts reproduced a prior art method “thirteen times and each time they made [the claimed] crystals,” the patentee's chemists twice produced different crystals from the same method, thus precluding inherency

  3. Doyle v. Commissioner of Patents

    416 U.S. 935 (1974)   Cited 20 times

    No. 73-833. April 15, 1974. C. C. P. A. (Pat.) Certiorari denied. Reported below: 482 F. 2d 1385.

  4. Application of Doyle

    482 F.2d 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9139. August 30, 1973. Henry M. Bissell (Bissell Dalgarn), Los Angeles, Cal., Donald D. Jeffery, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims

  5. 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

  6. 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."

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. Section 2 - Powers and duties

    35 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 115 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Patent Office to cover the expenses of "persons" other than federal employees attending programs on intellectual-property protection

  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)