§

Ex Parte BERGEY et al

07801207 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 7, 1998)
Ex Parte BERGEY et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Greenfield

    571 F.2d 1185 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times
    Finding evidence of secondary considerations was not commensurate with the scope of the claims where evidence related to only one compound and there was no adequate basis to conclude that other compounds included within the scope of the claims would behave in the same manner

  2. In re Kulling

    897 F.2d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious

  3. Application of Lindner

    457 F.2d 506 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times
    Involving dispersant compositions designed to emulsify solutions such as insecticide

  4. In re Kerkhoven

    626 F.2d 846 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 79-586. May 15, 1980. James J. Farrell, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, and Trademarks; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge. The Honorable Bernard Newman, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. NEWMAN, Judge. This is an

  5. Application of Muchmore

    433 F.2d 824 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8356. November 25, 1970. Lyon Lyon, James W. Geriak, Douglas E. Olson, Los Angeles, Cal., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R.E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Associate Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, which affirmed the examiner's rejection

  6. Application of Pinten

    459 F.2d 1053 (C.C.P.A. 1972)

    June 1, 1972. Burgess, Dinklage and Sprung, attys. of record, for appellants. James F. Woods, Michael G. Gilman, of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Associate Judges, and MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration

  7. Application of Crockett

    279 F.2d 274 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6478. June 8, 1960. Clarence M. Fisher, Washington, D.C. (H. Hume Mathews, Murray Hill, N.J., of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Arthur H. Behrens, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL

  8. Application of Dial

    326 F.2d 430 (C.C.P.A. 1964)

    Patent Appeal No. 7063. January 23, 1964. George R. Jones, Beale Jones, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Dial and Cormany seek to patent a method for stabilizing a liquid halogenated hydrocarbon as well as the stabilized composition. To that end they ask us to reverse the decision of the Board

  9. 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."

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. Section 1.141 - Different inventions in one national application

    37 C.F.R. § 1.141   Cited 15 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Two or more independent and distinct inventions may not be claimed in one national application, except that more than one species of an invention, not to exceed a reasonable number, may be specifically claimed in different claims in one national application, provided the application also includes an allowable claim generic to all the claimed species and all the claims to species in excess of one are written in dependent form (§ 1.75 ) or otherwise include all the limitations of the generic claim

  13. Section 1.197 - Termination of proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.197   Cited 6 times

    (a) Proceedings on an application are considered terminated by the dismissal of an appeal or the failure to timely file an appeal to the court or a civil action except: (1) Where claims stand allowed in an application; or (2) Where the nature of the decision requires further action by the examiner. (b) The date of termination of proceedings on an application is the date on which the appeal is dismissed or the date on which the time for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or