§
Ex Parte Wong

12 Cited authorities

  1. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  2. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  3. Application of Moore

    439 F.2d 1232 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 46 times
    Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims

  4. In re Sneed

    710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that a prior art reference should not be considered "because it deals with collapsible hose rather than flexible plastic pipe and teaches that rolling 600 feet of 4 inch, noncollapsible hose into a transportable bundle is virtually 'an insurmountable task'" because "it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."

  5. In re Anderson

    471 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 19 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8837. January 26, 1973. S. Augustus Demma, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the Patent Office Board of Appeals decision affirming the rejection of claims 1-10, all claims of application serial No. 642,294, filed May

  6. Application of Scott

    323 F.2d 1016 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7018. November 14, 1963. Kenyon Kenyon, Ralph L. Chappell, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Comr. of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 12-16 of application Serial No. 440,369, filed June 30, 1954, entitled "Hollow Glass Fiber Shaft." The invention

  7. Application of Flint

    330 F.2d 363 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7113. April 16, 1964. Henry L. Brinks, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, JJ RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the rejection of claims 11 and 12 in appellant's application serial No. 757,385, filed August 26, 1958, entitled "Releasable Hold

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 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 6,172 times   492 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 1.75 - Claim(s)

    37 C.F.R. § 1.75   Cited 114 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth proper drafts for independent and dependent claims

  11. 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"

  12. 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)