§
Ex parte BODDY

9 Cited authorities

  1. D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp.

    714 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a sale by a patentee or an assignee of a product made by a claimed method before the critical date results in a "forfeiture" of any right to a patent to that method, even though the sale of the product did not reveal anything about the method to the public

  2. Baker Oil Tools, Inc. v. Geo Vann, Inc.

    828 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 64 times
    Finding prior assertion before the PTO during an interference proceeding did not have preclusive effect but could be considered a party admission

  3. In re Brigance

    792 F.2d 1103 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 29 times

    Appeal No. 85-2561. June 4, 1986. Charles Hieken, Boston, Mass., argued, for appellant. John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him, on brief, were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Patent Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before DAVIS, SMITH, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this patent case

  4. Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing Auto Parts Co.

    153 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1946)   Cited 87 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Metallizing, a 1946 Second Circuit case addressing the on-sale bar, Judge Learned Hand aptly observed that an inventor "shall not exploit his discovery competitively after it is ready for patenting; he must content himself with either secrecy, or legal monopoly."

  5. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 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 6,172 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."

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. 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

  9. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.142   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing requirement for restriction