§

Ex Parte Kitching et al

10758065 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)
Ex Parte Kitching et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch Lomb Inc.

    909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding § 271(c) codified common law doctrine prohibiting sale of "component" that "had no other use except with claimed product or process"

  2. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  3. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  4. Application of Prater

    415 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 78 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination "since the applicant may then amend his claims"

  5. Hyatt v. Dudas

    551 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the final judgment rule applies in section 145 cases

  6. Roberts v. Ryer

    91 U.S. 150 (1875)   Cited 98 times
    In Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 151, 23 L. Ed. 267, the Supreme Court said it is no new invention to use an old machine for a new purpose.

  7. Application of Casey

    370 F.2d 576 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7718. January 12, 1967. Charles H. Lauder, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (S. William Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. 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 claims

  8. Application of Otto

    312 F.2d 937 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6901. February 13, 1963. Clarence M. Fisher, Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Barrows Taylor, Washington, D.C. (John T. Roberts, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the Primary Examiner's rejection

  9. Application of Rishoi

    197 F.2d 342 (C.C.P.A. 1952)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming the "refusal to allow claim based upon an unequivocal admission in appellants' specification of what was old and well known in the art"

  10. In re Young

    75 F.2d 996 (C.C.P.A. 1935)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3432. March 25, 1935. Appeal from Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office, Serial No. 412,654. Application for patent by Howard F. Young. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Examiner which rejected certain claims of the application, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Chappell Earl, of Kalamazoo, Mich., for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner

  11. 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  15. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  16. 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)