§

Ex Parte Roggeman et al

10799565 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 1, 2010)
Ex Parte Roggeman et al

17 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. Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc.

    142 F.3d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 49 times
    Finding patentee's repeated arguments regarding the limitations constituted an admission that the limitations were necessary to overcome the prior art and the reissue claims impermissibly recaptured surrendered subject matter

  3. 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

  4. Application of Ludtke

    441 F.2d 660 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8513. May 6, 1971. John O. Tresansky, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Edward E. Kubasiewicz, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and SKELTON, Judge, Customs Court, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1-7 of appellants'

  5. Roberts v. Ryer

    91 U.S. 150 (1875)   Cited 98 times
    In Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 151, 23 L. Ed. 267, the Supreme Court said it is no new invention to use an old machine for a new purpose.

  6. Application of Casey

    370 F.2d 576 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7718. January 12, 1967. Charles H. Lauder, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (S. William Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims

  7. Application of Rishoi

    197 F.2d 342 (C.C.P.A. 1952)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming the "refusal to allow claim based upon an unequivocal admission in appellants' specification of what was old and well known in the art"

  8. In re Smith

    17 C.C.P.A. 644 (C.C.P.A. 1929)   Cited 17 times

    Patent Appeal No. 2169. December 19, 1929. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents. Application for patent by Jesse A.B. Smith. From a decision rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. See also 36 F.2d 303. Burnham C. Stickney, of New York City (L.H. Campbell, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges. GRAHAM, Presiding Judge. The appellant

  9. In re Nelson

    137 F.2d 106 (C.C.P.A. 1943)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 4765. July 6, 1943. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 244,991. Proceedings in the matter of the application of Andrew C. Nelson and another for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office affirming a decision of Primary Examiner rejecting certain claims, the applicants appeal. Decision of Board of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. W.H. Ramsey, of Washington, D.C., for appellants. W.W

  10. Corning Et. al. v. Burden

    56 U.S. 252 (1853)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Corning et al. v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 267, et seq., 14 L. Ed. 683, the court refers to the fundamental difference between process and machine patents, calling attention to the fact that a process may be patentable irrespective of any particular form of machinery or mechanical device for practicing it.

  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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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

  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 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by