§

Ex Parte Griencewic

08971320 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2004)
Ex Parte Griencewic

13 Cited authorities

  1. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  2. In re Sang-Su Lee

    277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 106 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency tribunals "must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action"

  3. In re Dembiczak

    175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 93 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to consider an obviousness rejection raised for the first time on appeal from the PTO

  4. Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Products

    840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a patentee can prove infringement by showing that just "some samples" or even "a sample" of the product is found to meet all the limitations of a patent's claims

  5. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  6. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 32 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  7. McElmurry v. Arkansas Power Light Co.

    995 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 29 times
    In McElmurry, Arkansas Power & Light ("AP&L") used the invention in question only in its own facilities, even though a third-party contractor, upon receipt of the design and specifications for the invention from AP&L, had manufactured and installed the invention.

  8. In re Rijckaert

    9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 93-1206. November 23, 1993. Edward W. Goodman, North American Philips Corp., of Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Algy Tamoshunas. Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the

  9. Application of Lintner

    458 F.2d 1013 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 24 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8718. May 4, 1972. Eugene F. Buell, Blenko Ziesenheim, Pittsburgh, Pa., William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael, Bradford Gardiner, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Associate Judges, and MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This

  10. Application of Warner

    379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,413 times   1065 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 6,169 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 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)