§

Ex Parte Lin et al

10396916 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2011)
Ex Parte Lin et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Woodruff

    919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claimed invention obvious because claimed range (“more than 5% to about 25%” carbon monoxide) abutted range of prior art (“about 1–5%” carbon monoxide)

  2. Application of Aller

    220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no criticality where claimed conditions allegedly contributed to roughly 20 percentage point improvement in yield

  3. Application of Lamberti

    545 F.2d 747 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-610. December 9, 1976. Kenneth F. Dusyn, atty. of record, for appellants; Melvin H. Kurtz and M. Ted Raptes, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board

  4. Application of Weber

    405 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8090. February 6, 1969. Harry Goldsmith, Bryant W. Brennan, Joseph G. Kolodny, Summit, N.J. (A. Ponack, Wenderoth, Lind Ponack, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the final rejection of claims

  5. In re Michalek

    162 F.2d 229 (C.C.P.A. 1947)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5317. June 3, 1947. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 395,235. Proceedings in the matter of the application of John C. Michalek for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the primary examiner rejecting certain claims of the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Pennie, Edmonds, Morton Barrows, of Washington, D.C. (Louis D. Forward, of New York City, and

  6. Application of Reid

    179 F.2d 998 (C.C.P.A. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5647. Argued November 8, 1949. Decided February 2, 1950. Willard L. Pollard, Jr., Akron, Ohio (Charles M. Thomas, Washington, D.C., and Bernard C. Frye, Akron, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, and JOHNSON, Associate Judges. JACKSON, Judge. Appellant appealed from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming that of the Primary

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,165 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. 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"

  10. 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)