§

Ex Parte MOSELER et al

12888706 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)
Ex Parte MOSELER et al

4 Cited authorities

  1. Huidekoper's Lessee v. Douglass

    7 U.S. 1 (1805)   Cited 4 times

    FEBRUARY TERM, 1805. Dallas, for the plaintiff, contended for three general propositions. 1. That a warrantee (meaning thereby a person claiming under a warrant from the commonwealth) who has been prevented by force of arms of the enemies of the United States, from improving, settling and residing on the land, but has persisted in his endeavours to do so, during two years from the date of his warrant, is forever and totally released, by the operation of the proviso, from the obligation of making

  2. 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."

  3. 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

  4. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well