§

Ex Parte Nathans et al

11847853 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)
Ex Parte Nathans et al

4 Cited authorities

  1. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  2. In re Kroekel

    803 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    Appeal No. 86-721. October 14, 1986. Michael B. Fein, Rohm and Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Carl W. Battle. Also on the brief was Rudolf E. Hutz, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, Wilmington, Del. Richard E. Schafer, Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,141 times   481 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."

  4. 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