§
Ex parte GEE

16 Cited authorities

  1. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  2. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

    750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 243 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where "patent disclosure list[ed] numerous salts, fuels, and emulsifiers that could form thousands of" claimed combinations, some of which would be inoperable, "the claims [were] not necessarily invalid" for lack of enablement unless a POSA needed to "experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed invention"

  3. In re O'Farrell

    853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 168 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"

  4. In re Wright

    999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 91 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Relying on art published five years after filing date to show what was "sufficiently unpredictable" as of filing date

  5. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 107 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

  6. In re Vaeck

    947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the examiner did not err in rejecting as nonenabled claims drawn to all genetically-engineered cyanobacteria expressing a given protein because the claimed 150 genera of cyanobacteria represent a vast, diverse, and poorly understood group; heterologous gene expression in cyanobacteria was "unpredictable"; and the patent's disclosure referred to only a genus

  7. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

  8. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  9. In re Ochiai

    71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-1446. December 11, 1995. Harold C. Wegner, Foley Lardner, of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Herbert I. Cantor and Douglas P. Mueller. Of counsel was Don J. Pelto. Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, Lee E. Barrett, Associate Solicitor, John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor and Richard E. Schafer, Associate Solicitor

  10. Application of Edwards

    568 F.2d 1349 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times

    Appeal No. 77-532. January 12, 1978. As Amended January 18, 1978. James L. Bailey, Houston, Tex., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the final

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1068 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

  12. 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,032 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 102 - Same; by whom administered

    4 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 9 times
    Governing the manner in which the oath is to be administered and recorded

  15. 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"

  16. 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)