§

Ex Parte Michelson

10683071 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2010)
Ex Parte Michelson

7 Cited authorities

  1. In re Rasmussen

    650 F.2d 1212 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times
    Concluding that the generic step of "adheringly applying" one layer to an adjacent layer satisfied the written description requirement, because "one skilled in the art who read specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered."

  2. In re Chateau Royale, Ltd.

    6 B.R. 8 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1980)   Cited 10 times

    Bankruptcy No. 79-04135. May 15, 1980. John E. Venn, Jr., Tampa, Fla., and Samuel J. Zusmann, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for debtor Chateau Royale, Ltd. Kenneth R. Ridlehoover, Pensacola, Fla., for creditor, Realty Center, Inc. OPINION N. SANDERS SAULS, Bankruptcy Judge. The facts and status of proceedings with respect to this controversy are as follows: Chateau Royale, Ltd., the debtor in these proceedings, filed its petition under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on October 4, 1979. Preparatory

  3. U. STATES v. 1960 BAGS OF COFFEE

    12 U.S. 398 (1814)   Cited 19 times

    February 15, 1814. PINKNEY, late Attorney General for the United States. Two objections have been made to the claim of the United States, for this forfeiture. 1. That the right of the United States does not vest until seizure and condemnation, and 2. That the United States are bound by the act of their officer in receiving the duties and permitting the goods to be entered. 1. The forfeiture occurs at the moment of committing the offence. The statute says whenever the act is done, the thing shall

  4. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,423 times   1070 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  6. 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)

  7. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 8 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by