§

Ex Parte Wilson et al

13480053 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2019)
Ex Parte Wilson et al

6 Cited authorities

  1. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.

    339 U.S. 605 (1950)   Cited 1,523 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

  2. In re Mayne

    104 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 38 times
    Finding a claimed enterokinase recognition sequence containing the amino acid sequence Phe–Pro–Leu was merely “an obvious functional equivalent” to prior art sequences that included arrangements of Phe–Pro–Ile and Leu–Pro–Leu

  3. In re Ruff

    256 F.2d 590 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 19 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6357. June 24, 1958. Brumbaugh, Free, Graves Donohue, New York City (Eben M. Graves and John R. Janes, New York City, of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J. Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. C. Willard Hayes, Washington, D.C., William J. Barnes, New York City, Neal A. Waldrop, Detroit, Mich., Leland L. Chapman, Cleveland, Ohio (Paul L. Tillson, Pittsburgh, Pa., John D. Upham and Frederick C. Wellington, Dayton, Ohio

  4. In re Christensen

    82 F.2d 715 (C.C.P.A. 1936)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3437. April 6, 1936. Rehearing Denied April 27, 1936. Appeal from Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 545,078. Application for patent by Niels Christensen. A decision by the Primary Examiner rejecting all the claims of the application was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, and the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Harold T. Stowell, of Washington, D.C. (Joseph R. Mares, of St. Louis, Mo., of counsel), for appellant. R.F. Whitehead, of Washington, D.C

  5. 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"

  6. 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