§

Ex Parte Fisher et al

13943468 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)
Ex Parte Fisher et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.

    151 U.S. 186 (1894)   Cited 198 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Explaining history of and collecting cases on double patenting

  3. Application of Ockert

    245 F.2d 467 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeals Nos. 6257-6261. June 25, 1957. Dos T. Hatfield, Washington, D.C. (Frank S. Busser, Philadelphia, Pa., and Theodore E. Simonton, Cazenovia, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J. Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, RICH, and JACKSON, retired, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. These are five appeals from decisions of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming rejections by

  4. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,160 times   489 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."

  5. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,024 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  6. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,531 times   2294 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."

  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 98 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