§
Ex Parte Droese

10 Cited authorities

  1. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.

    81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 135 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Remanding case to district court for consideration of whether parties' conduct was so vexatious that case may be deemed exceptional

  2. Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc.

    695 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 64 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the addition of plywood to fabric panels changed the structure of the accused device, such that the device did not have the required "flexible fabric front panel," because the addition of the plywood to the fabric panels removed the flexibility of the fabric

  3. In re Meng

    492 F.2d 843 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 9169. March 7, 1974. Herman J. Gordon, William S. Feiler, Chicago, Ill. (Dressler, Goldsmith, Clement Gordon, Chicago, Ill.), attorneys of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming

  4. Application of Rose

    220 F.2d 459 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6080. March 22, 1955. J. Preston Swecker, Washington, D.C. (William L. Mathis, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (H.S. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY and COLE, Judges. JOHNSON, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the holding of the Primary Examiner rejecting as unpatentable

  5. Application of Yount

    171 F.2d 317 (C.C.P.A. 1948)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5504. December 7, 1948. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 497,157. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Stanley G. Yount, for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming that of the primary examiner rejecting claims 22-25, of the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Huebner, Maltby Beehler, of Los Angeles, Cal. (Vernon D. Beehler and Herbert A. Huebner, both of Los Angeles, Cal. of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington

  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 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"

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)