§

Ex Parte Morizane

08813953 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 2001)
Ex Parte Morizane

8 Cited authorities

  1. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  2. Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp.

    724 F.2d 951 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 210 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the argument that an additional limitation be read into claims 1, 3, and 4 was only correct with respect to claim 1, and thus, only claim 1 was invalid

  3. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

  4. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  5. Application of Edwards

    568 F.2d 1349 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times

    Appeal No. 77-532. January 12, 1978. As Amended January 18, 1978. James L. Bailey, Houston, Tex., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the final

  6. Application of Langer

    503 F.2d 1380 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 9239. October 3, 1974. Bernd W. Sandt and Theodore Post, Midland, Mich., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,421 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

  8. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,547 times   2303 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."