§

Ex parte Gallegos

29057491 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 1998)
Ex parte Gallegos

4 Cited authorities

  1. In re Nalbandian

    661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved pincers

  2. Application of Lapworth

    451 F.2d 1094 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8586. December 16, 1971. Anthony A. O'Brien, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant; Francis A. Utecht, Long Beach, Cal., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection

  3. Application of Frick

    275 F.2d 741 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6517. March 8, 1960. William H. Pattison, Washington, D.C. (William H. Pattison, Jr., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to

  4. 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."