Ex Parte Toshima

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.
  2. In re Gorman

    933 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 90-1362. May 13, 1991. Thomas W. Tolpin, Highland Park, Ill., argued for appellant. Teddy S. Gron, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey B. Gorman and Marilyn Katz (hereinafter "Gorman") appeal the decision of the United States

  3. In re Jade West Corp.

    53 B.R. 16 (Bankr. D. Or. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    Bankruptcy No. 384-02952. June 26, 1985. Jerome B. Shank of Sussman, Shank, Wapnick, Caplan Stiles, Portland, Or., for trustee. Kenneth Lee Baker, Portland, Or., for claimants. MEMORANDUM OPINION HENRY L. HESS, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge. This matter came before the court upon a hearing on the trustee's objection to claims number 12 and 9 filed by Sidney Leo and Anita Leo, respectively. Mr. and Mrs. Leo filed wage priority claims in the amounts of $4,950.00 and $2,550.00, respectively. The trustee objected

  4. Electrical Ass'n of Missouri & Kansas v. Quality Hill Associates (In re Isis Foods, Inc.)

    47 B.R. 14 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1984)   Cited 1 times

    Bankruptcy No. 82-00209-3-11. November 2, 1984. Richard T. Brewster, Jr., Brewster Brewster, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner. J. Scott McCandless, Shook, Hardy Bacon, Kansas City, Mo., for respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 9, 1984, CONFIRMING TRUSTEE'S SALE TO RESPONDENT DENNIS J. STEWART, Bankruptcy Judge. This is an action in which the respondent, a purchaser of property at a sale from the trustee in bankruptcy, seeks to have the sale set aside. The motion

  5. Application of Garfinkel

    437 F.2d 1005 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8423. February 18, 1971. Clinton S. Janes, Jr., Corning, N.Y., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Associate Judges, and DAVIS, Judge, United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 11-16 of appellant's

  6. Application of Meinhardt

    55 C.C.P.A. 1000 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7922. April 11, 1968. Roger Y.K. Hsu, Cleveland, Ohio, Almon S. Nelson, Washington, D.C., Joseph F. Shekleton, William H. Pittman, Oberlin, Maky, Donnelly Renner, Cleveland, Ohio (Donald D. Jeffery, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the

  7. Application of Cochran

    374 F.2d 1017 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7792. April 6, 1967. Hugh P. Carter, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejections on prior art of claims 2,

  8. 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."
  9. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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