Stephan Gronenborn

7 Cited authorities

  1. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 276 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."
  2. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works

    150 U.S. 164 (1893)   Cited 19 times
    In Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164, 170, 14 S.Ct. 68, 70, 37 L.Ed. 1039 (1843), the Court held that the casting of a stone grate in one piece, which was formerly cast in two pieces, did not rise to the level of an invention.
  3. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 6,258 times   729 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
  4. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 5,328 times   337 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."
  5. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 135 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the Board "shall ... conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews pursuant to chapters 31 and 32."
  6. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 88 times   4 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

  7. § 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 not