§
Ex Parte Weber

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Longi

    759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 106 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

  2. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  3. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  4. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research

    304 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1467. DECIDED: August 30, 2002. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, William H. Alsup, J. Lynn H. Pasahow, Fenwick West LLP, of Palo Alto, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel on the brief were Beth H. Parker, Mary T. Huser, and S. Christian Platt, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen, LLP, of Palo Alto, California. Of counsel was Thomas S. Hixson, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen, LLP, of San Francisco, California. Robert E. Hillman

  5. Application of Swinehart

    439 F.2d 210 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 42 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear

  6. Application of Braithwaite

    379 F.2d 594 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7800. June 15, 1967. Rehearing Denied October 5, 1967. Marzall, Johnston, Cook Root, Richard L. Johnston, Herbert B. Keil, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, 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. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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 6,129 times   479 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  10. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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