§
Ex Parte Choi

15 Cited authorities

  1. In re Wright

    999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 91 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Relying on art published five years after filing date to show what was "sufficiently unpredictable" as of filing date

  2. In re Brana

    51 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 43 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent applicants had established the utility of claimed therapeutic compounds by presenting in vitro test results and evidence of structural similarity to therapeutically useful compounds

  3. In re Cortright

    165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the patent's written description must "illuminate a credible utility" to meet the enablement requirement

  4. In re Fisher

    421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that a claimed invention have "specific and substantial utility to satisfy § 101," and rejecting a claim to a gene sequence where the sequence has only been shown to have "biological activity"

  5. In re Warmerdam

    33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 20 times
    Holding unpatentable a process for controlling objects to avoid collisions which described “nothing more than the manipulation of basic mathematical constructs, the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea’ ”

  6. Application of Hammack

    427 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 12 times
    Finding claims invalid for indefiniteness where claims “serv[ed] as a shadowy framework upon which are located words lacking in precise referents in the specification”

  7. Application of Mayhew

    527 F.2d 1229 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming examiner's rejection of claims not limited to having a cooling zone at the exit of a steel strip from a zinc bath because the specification indicated that without that cooling bath the invented process would not work

  8. Application of Merat

    519 F.2d 1390 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-588. August 7, 1975. A. W. Breiner, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellant. Donald M. Wight, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Henry W. Tarring, II, 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, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge: This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  9. Application of Harwood

    390 F.2d 985 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7830. March 7, 1968. Harvey W. Edelblute, New York City, (George R. Jones, Beale and Jones, Washington, D.C., George P. Maskas, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1060 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

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,530 times   2294 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."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  13. Section 101 - Executive departments

    5 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 135 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Listing the Department of Commerce as an Executive department

  14. 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

  15. 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)