§

Ex parte Teufel

08163902 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 16, 2000)
Ex parte Teufel

8 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. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  3. In re Marosi

    710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the patent "provided a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine" a phrase of degree

  4. Application of Brown

    459 F.2d 531 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8621. May 18, 1972. William C. Long, David Dick, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  5. 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

  6. Application of Pilkington

    411 F.2d 1345 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that the product itself must be new

  7. 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."

  8. 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)