§
Ex Parte Fox

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Watts

    354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 86 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding patent holder waived new argument on the scope of the prior art never raised to the PTAB

  2. In re Gurley

    27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 102 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

  3. In re Berger

    279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to consider the merits of indefiniteness rejections not contested before the Board

  4. Matter of Application of Meyer

    599 F.2d 1026 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that rejection under § 102 was new ground following previous rejection under § 103, despite maxim that "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness"

  5. Application of Echerd

    471 F.2d 632 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8776. January 26, 1973. Charles B. Park, III, Charlotte, N.C., attorney of record, for appellants; Floyd A. Gibson, Charlotte, N.C., Joseph C. Walter, Washington, D.C., Parrott, Bell, Seltzer, Park Gibson, Charlotte, N.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is

  6. Application of Bush

    296 F.2d 491 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6713. November 17, 1961. Marcus Lothrop, San Francisco, Cal., Harry W.F. Glemser and Bacon Thomas, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (R.E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Com'r of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  7. Application of Boyer

    363 F.2d 455 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7562. July 21, 1966. Rehearing Denied October 6, 1966. W. Philip Churchill, New York City, (Tyler S. Roundy, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (J.F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place

  8. 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."

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  12. 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)