§

Salas, Luis F. et al.

29547549 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2019)
Salas, Luis F. et al.

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 39 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  2. Application of Blum

    374 F.2d 904 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that " design is a unitary thing and all of its portions are material in that they contribute to the appearance which constitutes the design"

  3. Application of Lapworth

    451 F.2d 1094 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8586. December 16, 1971. Anthony A. O'Brien, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant; Francis A. Utecht, Long Beach, Cal., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection

  4. Application of Stevens

    173 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1949)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5550. April 12, 1949. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. D-124,118. Proceeding in the matter of the application of George T. Stevens for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting the single claim in the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. E.J. Balluff, of Detroit, Mich. (George Rex Frye, of Detroit, Mich., of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington,

  5. 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."

  6. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,005 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  7. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  8. 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

  9. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and