§
Ex parte Unsin

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Grasselli

    713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    Concluding that unexpected results “limited to sodium only” were not commensurate in scope with claims to a catalyst having “an alkali metal”

  2. In re Baxter

    656 F.2d 679 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 19 times
    Explaining that "comprising" is a term of art meaning that the named elements are essential, but that other elements may be added and still form a construct

  3. In re Clemens

    622 F.2d 1029 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding narrow range of data could not “be reasonably extended to prove the unobviousness of a broader claimed range”

  4. Application of Mochel

    470 F.2d 638 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8768. December 29, 1972. Clinton S. Janes, Jr., Corning, N. Y., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 1-3 of appellant's application for "Strengthened

  5. Application of Kirsch

    498 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1974)

    Patent Appeal No. 9062. June 27, 1974. Barry A. Bisson, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 51-56, 58, 60-63, 65-69, 75,

  6. Application of Egbert

    298 F.2d 947 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6737. February 13, 1962. T.G. Gillespie, Jr., and William C. Long, New York City, for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Comm'r of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of all claims in appellants' application for a "Process for the Preparation of Ethylene Oxide" as

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1068 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

  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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,032 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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)