§

Ex parte Hermeling

08117378 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 1998)
Ex parte Hermeling

6 Cited authorities

  1. Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc.

    720 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 148 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims"

  2. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  3. Newman v. Quigg

    877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claimed invention must "operate to produce what [the patentee] claims it does"

  4. In re Lowry

    32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that printed matter doctrine did not apply to sequences of bits stored in memory because the claims dictated how application programs manage information, not the information content of the memory

  5. Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp.

    77 F.3d 450 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 1 times

    Nos. 93-1275, 94-1309. February 23, 1996. Donald R. Dunner, and Allan M. Sokal, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, D.C., Charles Alan Wright, of Austin, Texas and E. Edward Bruce, Covington Burling, of Washington, D.C., Attorneys for plaintiffs-appellees, filed a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc. S. Leslie Misrock, Pennie Edmonds, of New York, New York, Timothy B. Dyk, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, of Washington, D.C., George J. Moscarino,

  6. 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."