§

Ex parte REIDER et al.

07898348 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 1998)
Ex parte REIDER et al.

5 Cited authorities

  1. In re Durden

    763 F.2d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 20 times
    In Durden, however, the PTO examiner denied the appellants' claim directed toward the process of making the novel compounds.

  2. In re Ochiai

    71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-1446. December 11, 1995. Harold C. Wegner, Foley Lardner, of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Herbert I. Cantor and Douglas P. Mueller. Of counsel was Don J. Pelto. Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, Lee E. Barrett, Associate Solicitor, John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor and Richard E. Schafer, Associate Solicitor

  3. In re Brouwer

    77 F.3d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 3 times
    In Riddell, this Court rejected an argument that the complaint violated Rule 8 by lumping all defendants together without specifying the alleged misconduct of each defendant, because it was "apparent" that the claims were asserted against all defendants "for their concerted conduct under the 'Riddell' brand."

  4. Application of Albertson

    332 F.2d 379 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7187. May 21, 1964. Laurence Laurence, Washington, D.C. (Dean Laurence, Herbert I. Sherman, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals in which thirteen of the claims in appellant's patent application were refused. Serial

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 times   479 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."