Search for: "Ex Parte Prior"
Results 61 - 80
of 4,822
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2013, 6:57 am
From Ex parte BarrOf written descriptionWe agree with the Examiner, and further find that the meaning of oneof the limitations of the claims cannot be determined from the Specificationand drawings. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 6:02 am
Ex parte NagyAs to an apparatus claimAppellants have not shown by persuasive technical reasoning or credibleevidence that the structure set out in Fig. 1 and 2 of Braun does not perform(or is not capable of performing) the recited functions in Appellants’ claimsas explained by the Examiner (id.). [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 7:01 am
Ex parte Roberts, No. 2010-001801,at 6-7 (BPAI Dec. 17, 2010), http://efoia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf? [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 7:18 am
The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement of plaintiff's flush valve patent based on the PTO granting defendant's ex parte reexamination request. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 9:50 am
The patenthawk blog has a post about Ex Parte Whelen, in which the BPAI stated:The U.S. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 2:52 pm
Note that Ex parte Golovinsky is in the same technology center as Ex parte Jerding! [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 3:10 am
On Tuesday, the BPAI seemingly ended the 10 year saga of Ex Parte Gary E. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:38 am
Within Ex parte Abram We therefore find that enhancing Wakamatsu’s exhaust system with the high frequency absorption materials taught in Peube predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. [read post]
30 May 2010, 9:31 pm
• Public accessibility -- on the web, on the shelf, in the mail, "routine" practices; • Four steps to the abyss of 102(d); • Ex parte 102(g); abandon, suppress, conceal; • Actual vs. constructive reduction to practice (where 102(e) trumps 102(g)); •... [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 2:50 pm
Ex parte Nishioka (Appeal 2009-001507; Appl. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 8:49 pm
Footnote 5 of Ex parte Kissel is of interest: The Examiner stated in the Answer that “[e]very ground of rejection set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory actions) is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of rejection (if any) listed under the subheading ‘WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS’” (Ans. 3). [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 10:22 am
from within Ex parte Lin-->As to a rejection for lack of written description:The factual inquiry for determining whether a Specification provides sufficient written description for the claimed invention is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 7:40 pm
from Ex parte TOULOUSE The relevant claim involved an element directed to a thermistor:a thermistor sensitive to temperature andelectrically connected to the electronicmanagement module for transmitting temperatureinformation to the electronic management modulewhich is arranged to manage the temperatureinformation supplied by the thermistor in order todetermine an operating period of the fan afterignition according to the temperature information;wherein the thermistor is… [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 9:05 am
From Ex parte MaslowskiNon-obviousness cannot be established by attackingreferences individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of acombination of references. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 12:07 pm
In almost all cases, inter partes reexamination is better than ex parte reexamination, except of course where the requester wants to stay anonymous or the application from which the patent issued was filed before November 1999. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 9:06 am
The post What Is An Ex Parte Restraining Order? [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 3:10 am
RGB had earlier sought ex parte reexamination of the same patent based upon the same prior art now applied in the district court proceeding. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 11:44 am
As part of an ex parte reexamination process, the Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI) found Antor's patent claims invalid as both anticipated and obvious based upon the combination of four prior art references. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 10:30 am
The Superior Court’s Opinion conclusively holds that “absent an exigent circumstance that prevents a petitioner’s appearance, due process mandates a trial court convene an ex parte hearing prior to entering a temporary PFA pursuant to §6107(b)”. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 7:38 am
Within Ex parte Kerr To teach away, prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. [read post]
