§

Ex parte Sturm et al.

07999422 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 1997)
Ex parte Sturm et al.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Scripps Clinic Research Fdn. v. Genentech

    927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 452 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such claims are not limited by the process

  2. In re Goodman

    11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO actions did not dictate the rate of prosecution when Goodman accepted early issuance of species claims and filed a continuation application to prosecute genus claims

  3. In re Weiler

    790 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that reissue was not permitted where a patentee failed to establish that he had unintentionally omitted subject matter from his original claims

  4. In re Van Ornum

    686 F.2d 937 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 29 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding common ownership requirement set forth in 37 § C.F.R. 1.321 to be valid, reasoning that it is "desirable to tie both the termination and the ownership of the two patents together"

  5. Application of Orita

    550 F.2d 1277 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting a reissue application as seeking a correction that would have offended statutory requirements

  6. Application of Schneller

    397 F.2d 350 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7883. June 27, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 10, 1968. Robert F. Hause, Buffalo, N.Y. (James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and Judges RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office

  7. Application of Kuhle

    526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 75-602. December 4, 1975. Keith D. Beecher, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Joseph E. Nakamura, Sol., R.V. Lupo, Assoc. Sol., Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 of application serial No. 314,180, filed Dec. 11, 1972, for "Portable Moisture

  8. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 467 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  9. Section 1.312 - Amendments after allowance

    37 C.F.R. § 1.312   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "[n]o amendment may be made as a matter of right in an application after the mailing of the notice of allowance [a]ny amendment filed pursuant to this section must be filed before or with the payment of the issue fee, and may be entered on the recommendation of the primary examiner, approved by the Director, without withdrawing the application from issue"

  10. 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)