§

Ex parte Bertani

29100490 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2001)
Ex parte Bertani

6 Cited authorities

  1. In re Harvey

    12 F.3d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 30 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reversing a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because it "should have focused on actual appearances, rather than `design concepts'"

  2. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 40 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  3. In re Nalbandian

    661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved pincers

  4. In re Carter

    673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 81-593. April 1, 1982. Franklin D. Wolffe, Washington, D.C., and Thomas F. Smegal, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Harris A. Pitlick, Asst. Sol., of Washington, D.C., for the Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. NIES, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining

  5. Application of Glavas

    230 F.2d 447 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 21 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeals No. 6179. February 21, 1956. S.L. Wheeler and Wheeler, Wheeler Wheeler, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S.W. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON (retired), Judges. O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the final rejection by the Primary

  6. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."