§

Ex Parte Darr et al

11749501 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2013)
Ex Parte Darr et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc.

    469 U.S. 830 (1984)   Cited 110 times

    No. 83-2023. October 1, 1984, OCTOBER TERM, 1984. C.A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 725 F. 2d 1338.

  2. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc.

    725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that dependent claims fall with the independent claim on which they depend unless argued separately

  3. In re Sasse

    629 F.2d 675 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when PTO cites disclosure that expressly discloses invention disclosed in patent application, applicant has the burden to show lack of an enabling disclosure

  4. Application of Aller

    220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no criticality where claimed conditions allegedly contributed to roughly 20 percentage point improvement in yield

  5. Application of Yale

    58 C.C.P.A. 764 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Describing the internal inconsistency within a reference as a signal that a person of ordinary skill "would readily recognize" as portending error

  6. Application of Jacobs

    50 C.C.P.A. 1316 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6973. June 10, 1963. Bernd W. Sandt and Frederick Schafer, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 6 of appellants' application Ser. No. 671,131, filed July 11, 1957

  7. Metropolitan Engineering Co. v. Coe

    78 F.2d 199 (D.C. Cir. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    No. 6278. Argued January 9, 1935. Decided April 29, 1935. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Suit by the Metropolitan Engineering Company against Conway P. Coe, Commissioner of Patents. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Melville Church and C.B. Des Jardins, both of Washington, D.C., and D. Anthony Usina, of New York City, for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, Sol. of the Patent Office, of Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before MARTIN, Chief Justice,

  8. 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."

  9. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,972 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  10. 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"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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