§

Ex parte CARLSON

08173698 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 1998)
Ex parte CARLSON

4 Cited authorities

  1. In re Peters

    723 F.2d 891 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reversing claim rejections that were based on a difference between the broader claim terms and the narrower disclosure, because “[m]ost importantly, one skilled in the art would readily understand that in practicing the invention [the difference] is unimportant”

  2. Application of Salem

    553 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-623. April 21, 1977. David A. Anderson, Chicago, Ill. (Hume, Clement, Brinks, Willian, Olds Cook, Ltd., Chicago, Ill.), attys. of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Gerald H. Bjorge, 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. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark

  3. Application of Venezia

    530 F.2d 956 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-601. March 11, 1976. Donald R. Dunner, Lane, Aitken, Dunner Ziems, Washington, D.C., atty. of record, for appellant; S. Michael Bender, Richard A. Craig, New York City, Arthur Jacob, Hackensack, N. Y., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Thomas E. Lynch, 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. LANE, Judge. This

  4. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,363 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