§
Ex Parte Hirth

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Huai-Hung Kao

    639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 88 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "food effect" was obvious because the effect was an inherent property of the composition

  2. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  3. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  4. Application of Kronig

    539 F.2d 1300 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 18 times
    Holding no new ground of rejection when the Board relied on the same statutory basis and the same reasoning advanced by the examiner

  5. Application of Noznick

    391 F.2d 946 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7901. April 11, 1968. Alvin Guttag, Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. 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 the rejection of

  6. Application of Krammes

    314 F.2d 813 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6938. March 20, 1963. Richard R. Fitzsimmons, North Canton, Ohio, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 18, 19, 23 through 27 and 29 of appellant's application

  7. In re Cowles

    33 C.C.P.A. 1236 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5200. June 27, 1946. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 465,965. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Edwin Cowles for a patent on apparatus for disseminating materials in liquids. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims 4, 5, 7 and 8, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Emery, Varney, Whittemore Dix, of New York City (Nichol M. Sandoe

  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 1.136 - [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)