§

Ex Parte Stanga et al

13131355 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)
Ex Parte Stanga et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries Corp.

    156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 200 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, for a claim reciting glass "consisting essentially of" certain materials, the district court properly "left it to the jury to determine whether the amounts of [an unclaimed ingredient had] a material effect on the basic and novel characteristics of the glass"

  2. In re Huang

    100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 91 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the inventor's opinion as to the purchaser's reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus

  3. In re Peterson

    315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any overlap between a claimed range and one in the prior art is sufficient for a prima facie case of obviousness, even if insufficient to render it unpatentable

  4. In re Dillon

    919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a prima facie case of obviousness where the prior art tri-orthoester compound was found to be equivalent to the claimed tetra-orthoester compound and the use of the tri-orthoester as a fuel additive was expected to produce essentially the same result as the use of the tetra-orthoester

  5. Application of Payne

    606 F.2d 303 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the presumption of obviousness based on close structural similarity

  6. Application of Greenfield

    571 F.2d 1185 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times
    Finding evidence of secondary considerations was not commensurate with the scope of the claims where evidence related to only one compound and there was no adequate basis to conclude that other compounds included within the scope of the claims would behave in the same manner

  7. Application of Tiffin

    448 F.2d 791 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 21 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8502. October 7, 1971. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellants; William T. Bullinger, Washington, D.C., Sheldon F. Raizes, Wilmington, Del., Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. The Patent Office petitions for a rehearing or modification of our decision, handed down June 10, 1971. The

  8. In re Herz

    537 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" permits some additional elements, but excludes additional unspecified materials or steps that would "materially affect the basic and novel characteristic" of the claimed invention

  9. In re de Lajarte

    337 F.2d 870 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7237. November 5, 1964. John L. Seymour, Bauer Seymour, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section

  10. Application of Janakirama-Rao

    317 F.2d 951 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6997. June 10, 1963. Donald S. Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Jr., Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of application Ser. No. 534,529, filed September 15, 1955, for "Cadmium-Bismuth

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,065 times   462 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."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)