§

Ex parte Theller

08260635 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 1998)
Ex parte Theller

13 Cited authorities

  1. Smithkline Diagnostics v. Helena Laboratories

    859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 382 times
    Holding that an accused infringer's mis-marking of a product could not convert by estoppel an admittedly non-infringing product into an infringing product

  2. Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 253 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]wo claims which read differently can claim the same subject matter"

  3. Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating Packing

    731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]n original patent cannot be infringed once a reissue patent has issued, for the original patent is surrendered" and "[t]he original claims are dead"

  4. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.

    758 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 210 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding “substantial evidence on which a reasonable jury could have found that the inventors were correctly named” despite conflicting trial testimony

  5. Townsend Engineering Co. v. Hitec Co.

    829 F.2d 1086 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 60 times

    No. 87-1141. September 16, 1987. Donald H. Zarley, Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees Sease, Des Moines, Iowa, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on brief was Mark D. Hansing. James D. Jacobs, Rosen, Dainow Jacobs, New York City, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on brief, was Dennis M. Flaherty. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge

  6. White v. Dunbar

    119 U.S. 47 (1886)   Cited 215 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reiterating that an inventor's patent claims must “define precisely what his invention is,” because ambiguity is both “unjust to the public” and “an evasion of the law.”

  7. In re Vamco Mach. and Tool, Inc.

    752 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-1383. Reexamination No. 29795. January 17, 1985. Arland T. Stein, Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Frederick H. Colen and Tracey G. Benson, Pittsburgh, Pa. Henry W. Tarring, II, Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Jere W. Sears, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, Circuit

  8. Application of Hammack

    427 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 12 times
    Finding claims invalid for indefiniteness where claims “serv[ed] as a shadowy framework upon which are located words lacking in precise referents in the specification”

  9. Application of Steele

    305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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)