§

Ex parte Carey et al.

08619269 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2000)
Ex parte Carey et al.

16 Cited authorities

  1. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems

    72 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 93 times
    Affirming finding of no intent to deceive; omitted prior art reference was in files of several employees, but evidence did not show that inventor or attorney knew of it

  2. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  3. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  4. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 58 times
    In Lear Siegler, the holder of a patent for a brake unit sued a brake assembly manufacturer ("Aeroquip") for infringement.

  5. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  6. Application of Swinehart

    439 F.2d 210 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 42 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear

  7. In re Sneed

    710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that a prior art reference should not be considered "because it deals with collapsible hose rather than flexible plastic pipe and teaches that rolling 600 feet of 4 inch, noncollapsible hose into a transportable bundle is virtually 'an insurmountable task'" because "it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."

  8. In re Nilssen

    851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting applicant's argument that the prior art must contain an express suggestion to combine

  9. Application of Johnson

    558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing rejection for inadequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but excluded two species of lost interference count

  10. Application of Miller

    441 F.2d 689 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8444. May 13, 1971. Jay P. Friedenson, Morristown, N.J., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FORD, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-18 in appellant's

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1068 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

  12. 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."

  13. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

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

  14. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  15. 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)