§

Ex Parte Park et al

13349141 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)
Ex Parte Park et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 83 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that issues raised only in a footnote may be deemed waived

  2. In re Bigio

    381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 71 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Affirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"

  3. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 107 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

  4. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  5. Application of Bowers

    359 F.2d 886 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 28 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7584. May 12, 1966. Evelyn K. Merker, Leon Simon, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief, 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

  6. Application of Henze

    181 F.2d 196 (C.C.P.A. 1950)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5659. Argued January 13, 1950. Decided April 3, 1950. Whittemore, Hulbert Belknap, Washington, D.C. (L. Gaylord Hulbert, Detroit, Mich., and George A. Degnan, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (J. Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL and JOHNSON, Judges. JOHNSON, Judge. On May 15, 1944, the appellant filed an application in the United States Patent Office

  7. In re Hass

    141 F.2d 122 (C.C.P.A. 1944)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 4819. February 7, 1944. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 333,443. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Henry B. Hass and another for a patent. From a decision affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting all of the claims of the application, the applicants appeal. Affirmed. See, also, 141 F.2d 127; 141 F.2d 130. Henry C. Parker, of Washington, D.C. (John Boyle, Jr., of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. W.W. Cochran, of Washington

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,423 times   1070 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

  9. 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."

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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 - [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)