§

Ex parte Rose et al.

08309790 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 1998)
Ex parte Rose et al.

23 Cited authorities

  1. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  2. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 345 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  3. 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

  4. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  5. 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’ ”

  6. Application of Marzocchi

    439 F.2d 220 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 42 times
    Involving the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph

  7. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 29 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  8. Application of Barker

    559 F.2d 588 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that a broad claim requiring selecting a backing board having a length at least as long as six shingles is not supported by a specification contemplating only backing boards the length of eight or sixteen shingles

  9. Application of Gardner

    427 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8311. June 25, 1970. Arthur R. Eglington, attorney of record for appellants, George J. Harding, 3rd, Joan S. Keps, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, Leroy B. Randall, Jack Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent

  10. In re Strahilevitz

    668 F.2d 1229 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 9 times

    Appeal No. 81-563. January 15, 1982. J. Philip Polster, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. The decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") sustaining the rejection of claims 36-48 as unsupported by an adequate disclosure required

  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 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 623 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  14. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  15. 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)