§
Ex Parte Hale

16 Cited authorities

  1. Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.

    864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 221 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the record established such a strong case of obviousness based on the teachings of the prior art, the fact that the product was successful does not overcome the conclusion of obviousness

  2. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 164 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  3. In re Piasecki

    745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem

  4. Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co.

    740 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a holding of fraud cannot be based on a suspicion of misrepresentation where a material reference was described in the patent application but not disclosed as appellant's own device

  5. In re Eli Lilly & Co.

    902 F.2d 943 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that an unexpected result in increasing the efficiency of feed utilization in ruminant animals was not sufficient when it was expected that the combination would increase weight gain in animals, as the prior art had invited experimentation in this area

  6. In re Grasselli

    713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    Concluding that unexpected results “limited to sodium only” were not commensurate in scope with claims to a catalyst having “an alkali metal”

  7. Application of Fenton

    451 F.2d 640 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8546. November 11, 1971. Robert E. Strauss, Brea, Cal., attorney of record, for appellant. Milton W. Lee, Brea, Cal., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States 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 rejection

  8. Application of Cavanagh

    436 F.2d 491 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8414. January 28, 1971. Linton Linton, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Ulle C. Linton, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Lutrelle F. Parker, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals insofar as it affirmed the

  9. Application of Gershon

    372 F.2d 535 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7722. February 16, 1967. Eben M. Graves, Allen G. Weise, New York City, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming final rejection

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   459 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."

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

  12. 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

  13. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   13 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057, Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  14. Section 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 52 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  15. 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

  16. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)