§

Ex Parte Uhl et al

11568056 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)
Ex Parte Uhl et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Davis v. Reddy

    620 F.2d 885 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 22 times

    Appeal No. 80-506. May 15, 1980. Rehearing Denied July 10, 1980. James B. Blanchard, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record for appellants; Maurice J. Jones, Jr., Phoenix, Ariz., of counsel. Charles W. Bradley, New York City, attorney of record for appellee; Paul J. Ethington, Reising, Ethington, Barnard, Perry Brooks, Southfield, Mich., Russel C. Wells, The Bendix Corp., Southfield, Mich., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge

  2. Szekely v. Metcalf

    455 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8655. March 16, 1972. Lawrence G. Kastriner, Harrie M. Humphreys, New York City, attys. of record, for appellant; Paul A. Rose, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Joseph F. Brisebois, Washington, D.C. (Holcombe, Wetherill Briesbois), Washington, D.C., attys. of record, for appellees. Appeal from Board of Patent Interferences. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges and ROSENSTEIN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the

  3. Glass v. Betsey

    3 U.S. 6 (1794)   Cited 3 times

    FEBRUARY TERM, 1794. For the Appellants, the case was briefly opened, upon the following principles. The question is of great importance; and extends to the whole judicial authority of the United States; for, if the admiralty has no jurisdiction, there can be no jurisdiction in any common law court. Nor is it material to distinguish the ownership of the vessel and cargo; since strangers, or aliens, in amity, are entitled equally with Americans to have their property protected by the laws. Vatt. B

  4. 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."

  5. 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"

  6. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  7. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  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)