§

Ex Parte Morse et al

10892839 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)
Ex Parte Morse et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Amgen v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche

    580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 209 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct "is analogous to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103"

  2. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  3. In re Marosi

    710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 36 times
    Holding claim limitations "are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"

  4. Johnson Johnson v. W.L. Gore Assoc.

    436 F. Supp. 704 (D. Del. 1977)   Cited 20 times
    In Johnson Johnson v. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 704 (D.Del. 1977), the court rejected a laches defense despite some indication the alleged infringement had been occurring for many years prior to the institution of suit.

  5. Application of Brown

    459 F.2d 531 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8621. May 18, 1972. William C. Long, David Dick, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  6. Application of Fessmann

    489 F.2d 742 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9121. January 10, 1974. Edward W. Goldstein, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, LANE and MILLER, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. ALMOND, Senior Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection, under 35

  7. Application of Pilkington

    411 F.2d 1345 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that the product itself must be new

  8. APPLICATION OF DIKE

    394 F.2d 584 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7941. May 16, 1968. Rehearing Denied July 3, 1968. Mason, Porter, Diller Brown, Charles J. Diller, Vincent L. Ramik, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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

  10. 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."

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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

  13. Section 1.136 - 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)

  14. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 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