§

Ex Parte Ougi et al

10855868 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 6, 2010)
Ex Parte Ougi et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Application of Kuhle

    526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 75-602. December 4, 1975. Keith D. Beecher, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Joseph E. Nakamura, Sol., R.V. Lupo, Assoc. Sol., Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 of application serial No. 314,180, filed Dec. 11, 1972, for "Portable Moisture

  2. Application of Tiffin

    443 F.2d 394 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8502. June 10, 1971. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellants. William T. Bullinger, Washington, D.C., Sheldon F. Raizes, Wilmington, Del. (Cushman, Darby Cushman), Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  3. Application of Thompson

    545 F.2d 1290 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-615. December 23, 1976. David S. Stallard, Cincinnati, Ohio (Wood, Herron Evans, Cincinnati, Ohio), atty. 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 Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of

  4. Application of Larson

    340 F.2d 965 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 12 times
    Affirming rejection because “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”

  5. Application of Marzocchi

    456 F.2d 790 (C.C.P.A. 1972)

    Patent Appeal No. 8654. March 30, 1972. Keith V. Rockey, Herman I. Hersh, Chicago, Ill., and Carl G. Staelin, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the patent office board of appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ROSENSTEIN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. ROSENSTEIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of

  6. Application of Keegan

    51 C.C.P.A. 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7200. May 14, 1964. Rehearing Denied June 18, 1964. B.D. Watts, Watts Fisher, Cleveland, Ohio, J.P. Wetherill, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Robert B. Keegan appeals from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 13 to 15 of an application for patent on

  7. In re Porter

    68 F.2d 971 (C.C.P.A. 1934)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3253. March 5, 1934. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 394928. Application for patent by John M. Porter. From a decision denying the application, applicant appeals. Affirmed. H.C. Bierman, of New York City (Ellis S. Middleton, of New York City, and William P. Spielman, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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"

  10. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)