§

Ex parte Misra et al.

07772830 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 1998)
Ex parte Misra et al.

3 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Warner

    379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U

  2. Application of Freed

    425 F.2d 785 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8215. May 14, 1970. Herman Hersh, Chicago, Ill., George A. Degnan, McDougall, Hersh, Scott Ladd, Chicago, Ill., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Leroy B. Randall, Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. Freed appeals from the decision of the Patent

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."