§

Ex Parte DeGrado et al

10801951 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)
Ex Parte DeGrado et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  2. Hartman v. Nicholson

    483 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 10 times

    No. 2006-7303. April 5, 2007. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, William P. Greene, Jr., Chief Judge. Susan Paczak, Abes Baumann, P.C., of Pittsburgh, PA, argued for claimant-appellant. Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for the respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and David M. Cohen, Director

  3. Application of Marzocchi

    439 F.2d 220 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 42 times
    Involving the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph

  4. Application of Freeman

    474 F.2d 1318 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8798. March 8, 1973. Richard P. Mueller, William J. Schramm, Niagara Falls, N.Y., attorneys of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the examiner's rejection of all

  5. Application of Muchmore

    433 F.2d 824 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8356. November 25, 1970. Lyon Lyon, James W. Geriak, Douglas E. Olson, Los Angeles, Cal., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R.E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Associate Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, which affirmed the examiner's rejection

  6. Application of Landgraf

    436 F.2d 1046 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8403. February 11, 1971. Herbert B. Keil, Chicago, Ill. (Johnston, Root, O'Keeffe, Keil, Thompson Shurtleff, Chicago, Ill.), attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. L. Randall, Bethesda, Md., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Patent Office Board of Appeals committed

  7. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  8. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  9. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)