5 Cited authorities
In re Bigio
381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 71 times 10 Legal AnalysesAffirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"
In re Hyatt
211 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 36 timesRejecting Hyatt's claim that the Board failed to analyze the claims on an element-by-element and claim-by-claim basis and affirming the Board's anticipation determination
In re Zletz
893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 42 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2
In re Van Geuns
988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 21 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 91-1088. March 10, 1993. Jack E. Haken, U.S. Philips Corp., Tarrytown, NY, argued, for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief, was Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before ARCHER, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. ARCHER, Circuit Judge. Johannes R. Van Geuns appeals from the September 25, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office
Section 41.52 - Rehearing
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 Cited 7 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