§

Ex parte OHRNBERGER et al.

08361284 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 1998)
Ex parte OHRNBERGER et al.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Richards v. Chase Elevator Company

    159 U.S. 477 (1895)   Cited 44 times
    In Richards v. Chase Elevator Company, 159 U.S. 477, the court said at page 486, 16 S. Ct. 53, 54, 40 L. Ed. 225: "While the omission of an element in a combination may constitute invention if the result of the new combination be the same as before, yet, if the omission of an element is attended by a corresponding omission of the function performed by that element, there is no invention if the elements retained performed the same function as before."

  2. Application of Wright

    343 F.2d 761 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7218. April 15, 1965. A.M. Prentiss, West Hartford, Conn., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States

  3. Application of Fleissner

    264 F.2d 897 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a finding of indefiniteness with respect to a means plus function claim requires an examination of the "record" to ascertain corresponding structure

  4. Application of Karlson

    311 F.2d 581 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6857. January 16, 1963. John F. Smith, and Donald J. Rich, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Com'r. of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Appellant appeals from an adverse decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 9 of his application for a patent on a chemical feeder. No claims were

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."