§

Ex Parte Borchard

09947083 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 28, 2007)
Ex Parte Borchard

13 Cited authorities

  1. Concrete Pipe Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Trust

    508 U.S. 602 (1993)   Cited 1,536 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that withdrawal liability as applied to Concrete Pipe, the employer, did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the imposition of withdrawal liability was clearly rational inasmuch as the employer's liability was based on a proportion of its contributions during its participation in the plan

  2. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 395 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  3. PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chemical Co.

    304 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a later-added claim encompassing a sequential application of chemicals to treat tubers was invalid under Gentry because the specification described application of the chemicals in a mixture

  4. In re Caveney

    761 F.2d 671 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 113 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 102(b), invention must be "on sale" in the United States

  5. In re Alton

    76 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when the examiner alleges that the claimed embodiment is outside the scope of the specification, he "need only establish this fact to make out a prima facie case"

  6. In re Epstein

    32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 47 times
    Finding “no clear error” in the Board's fact finding that writings dated after the filing date demonstrated the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention

  7. In re Wilder

    736 F.2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Finding reissue declaration's assertion of attorney error sufficient

  8. 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."

  9. In re Peters

    723 F.2d 891 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no lack of written description for claim omitting a tapered tip where there was no evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that a tapered tip was essential to the invention

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,372 times   1046 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

  11. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  13. 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