§

Ex parte Yuergens

08831198 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2000)
Ex parte Yuergens

5 Cited authorities

  1. In re Kotzab

    217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 119 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."

  2. Application of Larson

    340 F.2d 965 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 12 times
    Affirming rejection because “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”

  3. Richards v. Chase Elevator Company

    159 U.S. 477 (1895)   Cited 44 times
    In Richards v. Chase Elevator Company, 159 U.S. 477, the court said at page 486, 16 S. Ct. 53, 54, 40 L. Ed. 225: "While the omission of an element in a combination may constitute invention if the result of the new combination be the same as before, yet, if the omission of an element is attended by a corresponding omission of the function performed by that element, there is no invention if the elements retained performed the same function as before."

  4. Application of Wright

    343 F.2d 761 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7218. April 15, 1965. A.M. Prentiss, West Hartford, Conn., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,141 times   481 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."