§

Ex parte Bujanowski et al.

08063206 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 1998)
Ex parte Bujanowski et al.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Stempel

    241 F.2d 755 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 38 times
    Discussing what is necessary to successfully "swear back" of a reference under Rule 131, when the reference discloses a species of the applicant's generic claim

  2. Application of Clarke

    356 F.2d 987 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7489. March 10, 1966. Laurence Laurence, Washington, D.C. (Dean Laurence, Herbert I. Sherman, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. The issue in this appeal from the Board of Appeals is whether Rule 131 affidavits that show certain facts about species of a claimed genus

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 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."

  4. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"