§

Ex Parte Abe et al

10128474 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012)
Ex Parte Abe et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  2. Hyatt v. Dudas

    551 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the final judgment rule applies in section 145 cases

  3. In re Katz

    687 F.2d 450 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that patentee made a sufficient showing based on inventor's declaration that he was the sole inventor and explanation regarding the co-authors' contribution to the publication

  4. Application of Land

    368 F.2d 866 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 51 times
    Conflating the preceding elements into two: i.e., " the application for the reference patent must have been by one who is legally `another' and the filing date must be 'before the invention . . . by the applicant . . .'"

  5. In re Costello

    717 F.2d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 14 times

    Appeal No. 83-567. September 20, 1983. Richard L. Schwaab, Alexandria, Va., argued for appellant. Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MILLER, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and SMITH, Circuit Judge. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the December 5, 1979, decision

  6. Application of Facius

    408 F.2d 1396 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 23 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8238. April 10, 1969. Davidson C. Miller, John F. Witherspoon, Stevens, Davis, Miller Mosher, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the Patent Office Board of Appeals decision affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, all of the claims in appellant's

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  9. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  10. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  11. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  12. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  13. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)