§

Ex parte Hamisch

08371642 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 1999)
Ex parte Hamisch

10 Cited authorities

  1. Dillon v. Manbeck

    500 U.S. 904 (1991)   Cited 34 times

    No. 90-1264. April 29, 1991, OCTOBER TERM, 1990. C.A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 2d 688.

  2. In re Huang

    100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 94 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the inventor's opinion as to the purchaser's reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus

  3. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  4. 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

  5. Application of Aller

    220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no criticality where claimed conditions allegedly contributed to roughly 20 percentage point improvement in yield

  6. Application of Goodman

    339 F.2d 228 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7250. December 17, 1964. James H. Littlepage, Dugald S. McDougall, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (L.F. Parker, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of all of the claims in appellants' patent application. Serial No. 772,790, filed

  7. Application of Ludwig

    353 F.2d 241 (C.C.P.A. 1965)

    Patent Appeal No. 7470. December 2, 1965. Emanuel Herbert Liss, Buffalo, N.Y., 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, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 8-10 of appellant's application as obvious variations of certain prior art. These are all the claims remaining

  8. 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."

  9. 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"

  10. 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)