§

Ex Parte Hansson et al

10580219 (B.P.A.I. May. 4, 2012)
Ex Parte Hansson et al

4 Cited authorities

  1. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  2. 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

  3. In re Kroekel

    803 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    Appeal No. 86-721. October 14, 1986. Michael B. Fein, Rohm and Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Carl W. Battle. Also on the brief was Rudolf E. Hutz, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, Wilmington, Del. Richard E. Schafer, Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."