§

Ex Parte Schaeffer et al

08398259 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2001)
Ex Parte Schaeffer et al

6 Cited authorities

  1. In re Keller

    642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

  2. Application of Warner

    379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U

  3. Application of Sporck

    301 F.2d 686 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 24 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6709. May 4, 1962. Frederick J. Olsson, Synnestvedt Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument October 9, 1961, by Mr. Olsson and Mr. Nakamura] Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate

  4. Application of Young

    403 F.2d 754 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8058. December 5, 1968. Ralph L. Young, pro se, James W. Dent, Donald J. Rich, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 16-18 in appellants' application for "Filters" as unpatentable

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  6. 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)