§

Ex parte Wieres

08756349 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2002)
Ex parte Wieres

7 Cited authorities

  1. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  2. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 30 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  3. Application of Rinehart

    531 F.2d 1048 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 45 times
    Considering the problem to be solved in a determination of obviousness

  4. Application of Warner

    379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, 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. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U

  5. Application of Sporck

    301 F.2d 686 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 24 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6709. May 4, 1962. Frederick J. Olsson, Synnestvedt Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument October 9, 1961, by Mr. Olsson and Mr. Nakamura] Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate

  6. Application of Rothermel

    276 F.2d 393 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 22 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6470. March 30, 1960. Reuben Wolk, I. Louis Wolk, Los Angeles, Cal. (Lawrence B. Biebel, Dayton, Ohio, of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Arthur H. Behrens, Washington, D.C. (D. Kreider, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and JOHNSON (retired), Judges. SMITH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 15 through 20, in

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 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."