§

Ex parte CASTELLI et al.

07857216 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 1998)
Ex parte CASTELLI et al.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner

    778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 130 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim

  2. In re Bose Corp.

    772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system

  3. In re Sovish

    769 F.2d 738 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    Appeal No. 85-781. July 26, 1985. James W. Geriak, Lyon Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellants. With him on brief were Roy L. Anderson and William E. Mouzavires, Lyon Lyon, Washington, D.C. Fred W. Sherling, Associate Solicitor, U.S. Patent Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, Circuit

  4. Application of Pappas

    214 F.2d 172 (C.C.P.A. 1954)   Cited 4 times

    No. 6033. June 30, 1954. Charles S. Wilson, Farmingdale, L.I., N.Y. (Eugene H. Purdy, Washington, D.C., and Franz O. Ohlson, Jr., Farmingdale, L.I., N Y, of counsel), for appellants. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (H.S. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the

  5. In re De Vaney

    185 F.2d 679 (C.C.P.A. 1950)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5722. December 5, 1950. Pierce, Scheffler Parker, Washington, D.C. (Ralph E. Parker, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (J. Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. GARRETT, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner

  6. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."

  7. 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"

  8. Section 1.136 - 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)