§
Ex Parte Conte

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Portola Packaging Inc.

    110 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the reexamination improper where the rejection was based on old art even though the reexamination was originally instituted using new art

  2. Application of Craig

    411 F.2d 1333 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 15 times
    Relying on the "well settled principle that statutes granting tax exemptions or deferments must be strictly construed"

  3. Application of Borkowski

    505 F.2d 713 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 74-564. November 27, 1974. Rehearing Denied January 23, 1975. Barry A. Bisson, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  4. Application of Bush

    296 F.2d 491 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6713. November 17, 1961. Marcus Lothrop, San Francisco, Cal., Harry W.F. Glemser and Bacon Thomas, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (R.E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Com'r of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  5. Application of Cook

    372 F.2d 563 (C.C.P.A. 1967)

    Patent Appeal No. 7837. February 16, 1967. Edwin M. Thomas, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. KIRKPATRICK, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 9-11,

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 53 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  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)

  9. Section 1.198 - Reopening after a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    37 C.F.R. § 1.198   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    When a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on appeal has become final for judicial review, prosecution of the proceeding before the primary examiner will not be reopened or reconsidered by the primary examiner except under the provisions of § 1.114 or § 41.50 of this title without the written authority of the Director, and then only for the consideration of matters not already adjudicated, sufficient cause being shown. 37 C.F.R. §1.198 77 FR 46625 , Aug. 6, 2012 Part 2 is placed in the