§

Ex Parte Loretz et al

11559554 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)
Ex Parte Loretz et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 68 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[d]ue to breaks in the chain of priority," the "[parent] patent [was] prior art for some of the asserted claims"

  2. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  3. Application of Citron

    51 C.C.P.A. 869 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7030. January 23, 1964. James H. Littlepage, Washington, D.C. (Herman Hersh, Ooms, McDougall Hersh, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of all claims remaining in appellant's application

  4. Application of Vogel

    427 F.2d 790 (C.C.P.A. 1970)

    Patent Appeal No. 8339. June 25, 1970. T.E. Bieber, Emeryville, Cal., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-24 of application serial No. 520,021, filed December 13, 1965, for Velocity

  5. Application of Harza

    274 F.2d 669 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6562. January 19, 1960. Olson Trexler, Chicago, Ill. (Robert M. Wolters) Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d)

  6. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,277 times   1022 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   446 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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

  10. 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

  11. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)