§
Ex parte WOLD

14 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. In re Kotzab

    217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a patent to be obvious, "there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant."

  3. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil

    774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[t]he invention must be viewed not with the blueprint drawn by the inventor, but in the state of the art that existed at the time"

  4. In re Dembiczak

    175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 93 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to consider an obviousness rejection raised for the first time on appeal from the PTO

  5. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner

    778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 131 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim

  6. 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

  7. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 32 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  8. In re Dance

    160 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 19 times

    No. 97-1229. October 30, 1998. Grady J. Frenchick, Stroud, Stroud, Willink Thompson Howard, Madison, Wisconsin, argued for appellants Dance, et al. of counsel on the brief was Karen B. King. David J. Ball, Jr., Associate Solicitor, Office of Solicitor, Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. With him on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor, and Scott A. Chambers, Associate Solicitor. Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN

  9. In re Ochiai

    71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-1446. December 11, 1995. Harold C. Wegner, Foley Lardner, of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Herbert I. Cantor and Douglas P. Mueller. Of counsel was Don J. Pelto. Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, Lee E. Barrett, Associate Solicitor, John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor and Richard E. Schafer, Associate Solicitor

  10. 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."

  12. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  13. 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)