§

Ex parte VAN REES

08058092 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 1998)
Ex parte VAN REES

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. In re O'Farrell

    853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 168 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"

  3. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 107 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success

  4. In re Vaeck

    947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the examiner did not err in rejecting as nonenabled claims drawn to all genetically-engineered cyanobacteria expressing a given protein because the claimed 150 genera of cyanobacteria represent a vast, diverse, and poorly understood group; heterologous gene expression in cyanobacteria was "unpredictable"; and the patent's disclosure referred to only a genus

  5. In re Hedges

    783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Proceeding against accepted wisdom is evidence of unobviousness

  6. Application of Nomiya

    509 F.2d 566 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 74-514. February 6, 1975. Paul M. Craig, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R. V. Lupo, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-8 and 33

  7. Application of Davis

    305 F.2d 501 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6825. July 18, 1962. Gillette Virgil, Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C. (Theodore C. Virgil and Alvin Guttag, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place

  8. 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

  9. 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."

  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)