Ex Parte Kageyama et al

4 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Schneller

    397 F.2d 350 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7883. June 27, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 10, 1968. Robert F. Hause, Buffalo, N.Y. (James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and Judges RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office

  2. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,016 times   915 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
  3. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 5,859 times   413 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."
  4. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 208 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"