§

Ex Parte 6415082 et al

95001175 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2015)
Ex Parte 6415082 et al

4 Cited authorities

  1. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 118 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting petition for rehearing and vacating prior panel decision reported at 285 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

  2. In re Rasmussen

    650 F.2d 1212 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times
    Concluding that the generic step of "adheringly applying" one layer to an adjacent layer satisfied the written description requirement, because "one skilled in the art who read specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered."

  3. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,283 times   1029 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

  4. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)