§

Ex Parte Cassoni

10815202 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)
Ex Parte Cassoni

8 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,565 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  3. In re Coles

    14 B.R. 5 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1981)   Cited 7 times

    Bankruptcy Nos. 81-01782G, 81-01825G. August 31, 1981. S. Simpson Gray, Philadelphia, Pa., for debtors, Walter Henry Coles, Sr., Hazel M. Hunter. James J. O'Connell, Philadelphia, Pa., trustee in both of the above matters. MEMORANDUM OPINION EMIL F. GOLDHABER, Bankruptcy Judge: The issue at bench is whether we should permit the consolidation of the above two cases. We conclude that these cases may be more properly handled through joint administration rather than through consolidation. The facts,

  4. In re Einstein

    18 C.C.P.A. 885 (C.C.P.A. 1931)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 2573. February 3, 1931. Appeal from Board of Patent Appeals. Application for patent by Sol Einstein. From a decision rejecting certain claims, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Elmer R. Helferich, of New York City (Nathan Bowman, Albert F. Nathan, and Border Bowman, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD

  5. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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

  6. Section 3 - Officers and employees

    35 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 50 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

  7. Section 103 - Enacting or resolving words after first section

    1 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 1 times

    No enacting or resolving words shall be used in any section of an Act or resolution of Congress except in the first. 1 U.S.C. § 103 July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 634.

  8. 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)