§

Ex Parte Breese et al

11053962 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2011)
Ex Parte Breese et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 69 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any overlap between a claimed range and one in the prior art is sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness, even if insufficient to render it unpatentable

  2. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.

    127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 59 times
    Concluding that courts should evaluate the question of objective baselessness "in light of ... information [available] at the time of filing"

  3. Application of Lamberti

    545 F.2d 747 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-610. December 9, 1976. Kenneth F. Dusyn, atty. of record, for appellants; Melvin H. Kurtz and M. Ted Raptes, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board

  4. Application of Freeman

    474 F.2d 1318 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8798. March 8, 1973. Richard P. Mueller, William J. Schramm, Niagara Falls, N.Y., attorneys of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the examiner's rejection of all

  5. Application of Schulze

    346 F.2d 600 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7405. June 17, 1965. V. Alexander Scher, George J. Brandt, Jr., New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 8-11 in appellant's application for a "Method of Preparing Bituminous

  6. Application of Spence

    261 F.2d 244 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6387. December 1, 1958. Mitchell Bechert, New York City, (Fred J. Bechert and John M. Calimafde, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges. RICH, Judge. Appellant asks us to reverse the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirms the final rejection of a single claim of his application

  7. Hazlehurst v. the United States

    4 U.S. 6 (1799)

    AUGUST TERM, 1799. IN error from the Circuit Court for the district of South-Carolina. A rule had been obtained by Lee, the attorney-general, at the opening of the Court, that the plaintiffs appear and prosecute their writ of error within the term, or suffer a non-pros.: but it was found, that errors had been assigned in the Court below, and a joinder in error entered here. The rule was, therefore, changed to the following: "that unless the plaintiffs in error appear and argue the errors to-morrow

  8. Glass v. Betsey

    3 U.S. 6 (1794)   Cited 3 times

    FEBRUARY TERM, 1794. For the Appellants, the case was briefly opened, upon the following principles. The question is of great importance; and extends to the whole judicial authority of the United States; for, if the admiralty has no jurisdiction, there can be no jurisdiction in any common law court. Nor is it material to distinguish the ownership of the vessel and cargo; since strangers, or aliens, in amity, are entitled equally with Americans to have their property protected by the laws. Vatt. B

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,173 times   493 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 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,973 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  13. 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

  14. 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)

  15. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 8 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by