§

Ex Parte Hunter et al

12877300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)
Ex Parte Hunter et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Van Geuns

    988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1088. March 10, 1993. Jack E. Haken, U.S. Philips Corp., Tarrytown, NY, argued, for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief, was Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before ARCHER, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. ARCHER, Circuit Judge. Johannes R. Van Geuns appeals from the September 25, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  2. Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy

    742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting we do not "sit to review what the Commission has not decided"

  3. Application of Golen

    352 F.2d 385 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7434. November 10, 1965. Harvey B. Jacobson, Jacob Shuster, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (J.F. Nakamura, Washington D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the rejection of claims 1-4 of appellant's patent application entitled "Lock for Awning Type Windows." Appellant

  4. In re Helgason

    136 F.2d 260 (C.C.P.A. 1943)

    Patent Appeal No. 4685. May 18, 1943. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 315,678. Proceedings in the matter of the application of Arni Helgason for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Examiner rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Robert L. Kahn, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of

  5. 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."

  6. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,530 times   2294 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  7. 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"

  8. 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

  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)