§

Ex Parte Cretti

10681354 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)
Ex Parte Cretti

9 Cited authorities

  1. Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbro Corp.

    831 F.2d 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment was improperly granted "in view of the need for careful interpretation of the original and reissue claims in light of the specification, the prosecution history, and the alleged industry practice. . . ."

  2. In re Graff

    111 F.3d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Rejecting Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences's conclusion that where a reissue patent has issued, 35 U.S.C. § 251 does not authorize the grant of a second, later reissue patent stemming from the same original patent

  3. In re Fotland

    779 F.2d 31 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    Appeal No. 85-1546. December 12, 1985. George E. Kersey, Framingham, Mass., argued for appellants. With him on the brief were Barry D. Josephs and Gary S. Winer. Reissue Application Serial No. 177297. Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Michael L. Gellner, Asst. Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief

  4. Application of Rogoff

    261 F.2d 601 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that there is no statutory basis for reissue where the "new" claims are of the same scope as the claims in the predecessor patent

  5. Application of Doll

    419 F.2d 925 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8223. January 8, 1970. Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue Raymond, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant, Arthur S. Tenser, New York City, of counsel. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  6. Application of Ruth

    278 F.2d 729 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6534. June 1, 1960. Herbert J. Jacobi, Washington, D.C. (Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commr. of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK, Judge. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section

  7. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  8. 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"

  9. 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