§

Ex Parte Flores et al

11361650 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2010)
Ex Parte Flores et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  2. In re Mulder

    716 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]here is no question that applicants complied with all the formalities required by § 119 and related PTO rules"

  3. Application of Harry

    333 F.2d 920 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 27 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7168. July 9, 1964. William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael Gardiner, Washington, D.C., Eugene F. Buell, Hoopes, Leonard Buell, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of all claims of application

  4. Gould v. Schawlow

    363 F.2d 908 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lapse in activity of “nearly two months” defeated a claim of diligence

  5. Goger v. United States (In re Eady)

    4 B.R. 1 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1979)   Cited 7 times

    Bankruptcy No. 79-03140A. Adv. No. 79-0046A. October 23, 1979 (Bankruptcy). December 10, 1979 (Adversary). John J. Goger, Arrington, Rubin, Winter, Kirscher Goger, Atlanta, Ga., for trustee and plaintiff. Douglas R. Haynie, Haynie Willis, Marietta, Ga., for defendant Chancey. Alvin L. Bridges, Jr., Dunaway, Haas, Broome, Hope Bridges, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant Hulsey. STATEMENT OF THE CASE W. HOMER DRAKE, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge. On October 23, 1979, the above-named debtor filed a petition for relief

  6. Kendall v. Searles

    173 F.2d 986 (C.C.P.A. 1949)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5554. April 12, 1949. Appeal from the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office, Interference No. 81,799. Interference proceeding between George H. Kendall and Raymond R. Searles involving a patent of George H. Kendall, No. 2,349,281, relating to a number of different rotating constructions one of which includes a pulley. From a decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office awarding priority of invention to Raymond R

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."

  8. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  9. 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

  10. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  11. 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

  12. Section 1.136 - 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)

  13. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by