§

Ex Parte Siwinski et al

09334375 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 16, 2004)
Ex Parte Siwinski et al

4 Cited authorities

  1. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  2. Application of Rothermel

    276 F.2d 393 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 22 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6470. March 30, 1960. Reuben Wolk, I. Louis Wolk, Los Angeles, Cal. (Lawrence B. Biebel, Dayton, Ohio, of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Arthur H. Behrens, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and JOHNSON (retired), Judges. SMITH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 15 through 20, in

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,141 times   481 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."

  4. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,010 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"