§

Ex parte Leenaars et al.

07914654 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 1997)
Ex parte Leenaars et al.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.

    939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 398 times
    Holding that the doctrine of claim differentiation yields to an interpretation mandated by § 112, ¶ 6

  2. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  3. Application of Greenfield

    571 F.2d 1185 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times
    Finding evidence of secondary considerations was not commensurate with the scope of the claims where evidence related to only one compound and there was no adequate basis to conclude that other compounds included within the scope of the claims would behave in the same manner

  4. Application of Merchant

    575 F.2d 865 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining the common elements

  5. In re Boe

    355 F.2d 961 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7535. February 17, 1966. Burgess, Dinklage Sprung, Arnold Sprung, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. SMITH, Judge. The Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 9, 11 and 12 of appellant's application for patent Serial No. 845,743, filed August 12, 1959, for "Highly Porous And Absorptive

  6. In re Dill

    604 F.2d 1356 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    Appeal No. 79-518. August 9, 1979. Robert A. Felsman, Fort Worth, Tex., atty. of record, for appellants; Dennison, Dennison, Mesorole Pollack, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Associate Solicitor, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and MILLER, Judges, and PENN, Judge. The Honorable John G. Penn, United States District

  7. 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."

  8. 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)