§

Ex Parte Holt et al

12912416 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)
Ex Parte Holt et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  2. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science

    261 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding diligence finding where record showed “activity in every month during the critical period”

  3. Brown v. Barbacid

    436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that six single-day gaps in a 31–day critical period did not defeat a showing of reasonable diligence

  4. In re DeBaun

    687 F.2d 459 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 82-530. August 27, 1982. Ernest M. Anderson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Henry W. Tarring, II, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. NIES, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection of claims 9 and 10 in application

  5. Application of Borkowski

    505 F.2d 713 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-564. November 27, 1974. Rehearing Denied January 23, 1975. Barry A. Bisson, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  6. Fitzgerald v. Arbib

    268 F.2d 763 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6450. July 16, 1959. Boyken, Mohler Wood, Mark Mohler, San Francisco, Cal. (Gordon Wood, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for appellant. J.T. Basseches, New York City (Mark T. Basseches, New York City, of counsel), for appellees. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,160 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."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,024 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  10. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  11. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  12. Section 1.183 - Suspension of rules

    37 C.F.R. § 1.183   Cited 40 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for waiver of Patent Office rules

  13. Section 1.47 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.47   Cited 19 times   4 Legal Analyses

    37 C.F.R. §1.47

  14. Section 1.46 - Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter

    37 C.F.R. § 1.46   Cited 2 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. (b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph