§

Ex parte Kordiak

08758295 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2001)
Ex parte Kordiak

3 Cited authorities

  1. In re Kroekel

    803 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    Appeal No. 86-721. October 14, 1986. Michael B. Fein, Rohm and Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Carl W. Battle. Also on the brief was Rudolf E. Hutz, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, Wilmington, Del. Richard E. Schafer, Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge

  2. 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."

  3. 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)