Ex parte MATSUDA et al.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Eynde

    480 F.2d 1364 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8934. July 19, 1973. Alfred W. Breiner, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Robert D. Edmonds, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals, Serial No. 471,437. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration

  2. Ullstrand v. Coons

    147 F.2d 698 (C.C.P.A. 1945)

    Patent Appeal No. 4949. February 7, 1945. Appeal from the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office, Interference No. 79,280. Interference proceeding to determine priority of invention between Hugo M. Ullstrand and Curtis C. Coons. From a decision of the Board of Interference Examiners awarding priority of invention to Curtis C. Coons, Hugo M. Ullstrand appeals. Affirmed. Oliver Titcomb, of New York City, for appellant. Richard R. Fitzsimmons, of Chicago, Ill. (Harry S. Demaree

  3. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,422 times   1069 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
  4. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."