§

Ex parte Peterson et al.

08286696 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 1998)
Ex parte Peterson et al.

20 Cited authorities

  1. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  2. Sjolund v. Musland

    847 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 94 times
    Reciting the "general principle" that "limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims"

  3. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  4. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  5. In re King

    801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure

  6. In re Warmerdam

    33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 20 times
    Holding unpatentable a process for controlling objects to avoid collisions which described “nothing more than the manipulation of basic mathematical constructs, the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea’ ”

  7. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life

    887 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    Nothing of record limited "integral" to mean "of one-piece" construction

  8. Application of Cohn

    438 F.2d 989 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 15 times
    Finding claim term indefinite where the patentee's conflicting use of the term rendered the scope of the claims uncertain

  9. 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”

  10. APPLICATION OF DIKE

    394 F.2d 584 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7941. May 16, 1968. Rehearing Denied July 3, 1968. Mason, Porter, Diller Brown, Charles J. Diller, Vincent L. Ramik, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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

  12. 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 1.75 - Claim(s)

    37 C.F.R. § 1.75   Cited 113 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth proper drafts for independent and dependent claims

  15. Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.142   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing requirement for restriction

  16. 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)

  17. Section 1.197 - Termination of proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.197   Cited 6 times

    (a) Proceedings on an application are considered terminated by the dismissal of an appeal or the failure to timely file an appeal to the court or a civil action except: (1) Where claims stand allowed in an application; or (2) Where the nature of the decision requires further action by the examiner. (b) The date of termination of proceedings on an application is the date on which the appeal is dismissed or the date on which the time for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or