Ex Parte Modha et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Kuhle

    526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 75-602. December 4, 1975. Keith D. Beecher, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Joseph E. Nakamura, Sol., R.V. Lupo, Assoc. Sol., Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 of application serial No. 314,180, filed Dec. 11, 1972, for "Portable Moisture

  2. Application of Larson

    340 F.2d 965 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 12 times
    Affirming rejection because “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”
  3. Application of Marzocchi

    456 F.2d 790 (C.C.P.A. 1972)

    Patent Appeal No. 8654. March 30, 1972. Keith V. Rockey, Herman I. Hersh, Chicago, Ill., and Carl G. Staelin, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the patent office board of appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ROSENSTEIN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. ROSENSTEIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of

  4. Application of Billingsley

    47 C.C.P.A. 1108 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6549. June 29, 1960. Harold S. Meyer, Akron, Ohio, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United State Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, U.S.C. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal

  5. Application of Griver

    354 F.2d 377 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7309. January 6, 1966. Allen E. Botney, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. David M. Griver appeals from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection on prior art of claim 3 in appellant's application entitled "Multi-Terminal Ground Stud." The remaining claims in the

  6. In re Porter

    68 F.2d 971 (C.C.P.A. 1934)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3253. March 5, 1934. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 394928. Application for patent by John M. Porter. From a decision denying the application, applicant appeals. Affirmed. H.C. Bierman, of New York City (Ellis S. Middleton, of New York City, and William P. Spielman, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 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 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)