§

Ex parte Kubitza et al.

08318328 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 1999)
Ex parte Kubitza et al.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Swain v. Crittendon

    332 F.2d 820 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7131. June 11, 1964. Roy G. Story, Edward T. McCabe, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. Ellsworth H. Mosher, Washington, D.C. (Sidney A. Johnson, Dallas, Tex., of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. SMITH, Judge. This appeal by Swain et al. from an award of priority to Crittendon raises the single issue of whether Crittendon is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to rely upon the filing date of a parent application as establishing

  2. Application of Panagrossi

    277 F.2d 181 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6542. April 6, 1960. James M. Mason, Rockwell Bartholow, Edmond M. Bartholow, New Haven, Conn., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section

  3. Application of Ayers

    154 F.2d 182 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5107. March 6, 1946. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 278,027. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Joseph W. Ayers for a patent on a process of producing iron oxide. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the primary examiner's final rejection of one of the claims, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Hammond Littell, of New York City (Albert C. Johnston, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington

  4. In re De Vaney

    185 F.2d 679 (C.C.P.A. 1950)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5722. December 5, 1950. Pierce, Scheffler Parker, Washington, D.C. (Ralph E. Parker, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (J. Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. GARRETT, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner

  5. 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."

  6. 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"

  7. 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)