§

Ex Parte Countee

29094432 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 16, 2003)
Ex Parte Countee

6 Cited authorities

  1. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 40 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  2. In re Nalbandian

    661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved pincers

  3. In re Haruna

    249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1283. DECIDED: April 18, 2001. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Schall, Circuit Judge. Andrew J. Patch, Young Thompson, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellants. Joseph G. Piccolo, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellee, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and

  4. In re Sung Nam Cho

    813 F.2d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the Board's holding that "the artisan would have been motivated" to combine the references

  5. Application of Glavas

    230 F.2d 447 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 21 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeals No. 6179. February 21, 1956. S.L. Wheeler and Wheeler, Wheeler Wheeler, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S.W. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON (retired), Judges. O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the final rejection by the Primary

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."