§

Ex Parte Eckel et al

08801837 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2000)
Ex Parte Eckel et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 345 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  2. Doyle v. Commissioner of Patents

    416 U.S. 935 (1974)   Cited 20 times

    No. 73-833. April 15, 1974. C. C. P. A. (Pat.) Certiorari denied. Reported below: 482 F. 2d 1385.

  3. In re De Blauwe

    736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-513. June 8, 1984. Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Pasadena, Cal., argued for appellants. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge. JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from that part of the decision of the

  4. 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

  5. Application of Angstadt

    537 F.2d 498 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 33 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent applicants are not required to enable every species encompassed by their claims

  6. In re Strahilevitz

    668 F.2d 1229 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 9 times

    Appeal No. 81-563. January 15, 1982. J. Philip Polster, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. The decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") sustaining the rejection of claims 36-48 as unsupported by an adequate disclosure required

  7. Application of Eynde

    480 F.2d 1364 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8934. July 19, 1973. Alfred W. Breiner, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Robert D. Edmonds, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals, Serial No. 471,437. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration

  8. Application of Doyle

    482 F.2d 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9139. August 30, 1973. Henry M. Bissell (Bissell Dalgarn), Los Angeles, Cal., Donald D. Jeffery, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims

  9. Application of Scarbrough

    500 F.2d 560 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9249. June 27, 1974. Nathan Cass, Westlake Village, Cal., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection, for insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of all the

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1069 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  11. 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)