§

Ex Parte Carpenter

09935936 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 5, 2008)
Ex Parte Carpenter

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 346 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  2. Newman v. Quigg

    877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claimed invention must "operate to produce what [the patentee] claims it does"

  3. Newman v. Quigg

    681 F. Supp. 16 (D.D.C. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Civ. A. No. 83-0001. February 17, 1988. As Amended February 26, 1988. John P. Flannery, II, Leesburg, Va., for plaintiff. Fred E. McKelvey, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for defendant. DECISION AND ORDER JACKSON, District Judge. Plaintiff Joseph W. Newman, of Lucedale, Mississippi, an inventor, sues Donald J. Quigg, U.S. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, in his official capacity as head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("Patent Office" or "PTO") pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145

  4. Application of Langer

    503 F.2d 1380 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 9239. October 3, 1974. Bernd W. Sandt and Theodore Post, Midland, Mich., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection

  5. Application of Doyle

    482 F.2d 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9139. August 30, 1973. Henry M. Bissell (Bissell Dalgarn), Los Angeles, Cal., Donald D. Jeffery, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims

  6. Application of Gaubert

    524 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-574. November 13, 1975. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, R. V. Lupo, Associate Solicitor, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Associate Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. ALMOND, Senior Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals affirming the rejections of claims 1 and 2

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,423 times   1070 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

  8. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,548 times   2304 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  9. 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"

  10. 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

  11. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  12. 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)