§

Ex Parte HAMAD et al

14048680 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2019)
Ex Parte HAMAD et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  2. 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”

  3. In re Clemens

    622 F.2d 1029 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding narrow range of data could not “be reasonably extended to prove the unobviousness of a broader claimed range”

  4. Application of Greenfield

    571 F.2d 1185 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times
    Finding evidence of secondary considerations was not commensurate with the scope of the claims where evidence related to only one compound and there was no adequate basis to conclude that other compounds included within the scope of the claims would behave in the same manner

  5. Application of Tiffin

    448 F.2d 791 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 21 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8502. October 7, 1971. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellants; William T. Bullinger, Washington, D.C., Sheldon F. Raizes, Wilmington, Del., Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. The Patent Office petitions for a rehearing or modification of our decision, handed down June 10, 1971. The

  6. Application of Klosak

    455 F.2d 1077 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8582. March 9, 1972. Charles W. B. Connors, Chicago, Ill. (Johnston, Root, O'Keeffe, Keil, Thompson Shurtleff, Chicago, Ill.), attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., son Shurtleff), Chicago, Ill., attorneys E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,166 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."

  8. 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)

  9. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by