Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Ex parte Dakin

9 Cited authorities

  1. General Foods v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle

    972 F.2d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one claim is "patentably distinct" from another if the differences between them are such that the subject matter of one would not have been obvious over the subject matter of the other

  2. In re Kaplan

    789 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing PTO's rejection of claim for double patenting and noting that double patenting does not necessarily arise because a broad or generic claim reads on an invention defined by a narrower more specific claim in another patent

  3. Application of Vogel

    422 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a rejection of a claim in a later patent covering a method for packaging meat as obviousness-type double patenting in light of claims in an earlier patent covering a method for packaging pork

  4. Application of Schneller

    397 F.2d 350 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7883. June 27, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 10, 1968. Robert F. Hause, Buffalo, N.Y. (James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and Judges RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office

  5. Application of White

    405 F.2d 904 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8076. January 16, 1969. Whelan, Chasan, Litton, Marx Wright (Harold Einhorn, of counsel), for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1-6 in appellants' application on the ground of double patenting over the claims

  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."

  7. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,547 times   2301 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."

  8. Section 35-A:2 - Citation

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 35-A:2   Cited 5 times

    This chapter shall be known as, and may be cited as, the New Hampshire municipal bond bank law. RSA 35-A:2 1977, 491:1, eff. July 1, 1977.

  9. Section 1.141 - Different inventions in one national application

    37 C.F.R. § 1.141   Cited 15 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Two or more independent and distinct inventions may not be claimed in one national application, except that more than one species of an invention, not to exceed a reasonable number, may be specifically claimed in different claims in one national application, provided the application also includes an allowable claim generic to all the claimed species and all the claims to species in excess of one are written in dependent form (§ 1.75 ) or otherwise include all the limitations of the generic claim