« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Improving Old Element..
On Copending Applications..
Delay and Failure of Others to Produce Invention..
Applications for Patent..
Inadvertence, Accident and Mistake..
Time for Application.-
Sufficiency of Disclosure.
Chemical and Mechanical Inventions..
Affidavits of Use .-.
Purchasers and Selling Methods.
Damage to Opposer----
Registration Not Attackable...
INDEX-DIGEST, VOLUME 57
Rule 131 affidavits overcome reference where they show manufacture
Where product shown in Rule 131 affidivats falls under a group of
of reference. In re Wakefield, 959.
Mere fact of disagreement between parties as to who sugested or per-
Third paragraph of 35 USO 116 contains no provision requiring
APPLICATIONS FOR PATENT.
Statutes contain no express grant to Commissioner of authority to
Where courts have approved striking of patent application for conduct
While Patent Office Rule 56 is interpreted more broadly in area of
burden of persuasion. Norton v. Curtiss, 1384.
Court takes judicial notice that it is not uncommon for Board to cite
Manner in which Board treated claims, combining disclosures of refer-
35 USC 132 and 134 do not require that each and every claim presented
Examiner's decisions directly relating to rejection of claims are subject
BOARD OF APPEALS—Continued
Examiner's denial of request that application be amended to include
requirements. In re Searles, 912.
Claim is group of words defining only the boundary of patent mo-
Claim is a definition of scope of patent protection. In re Hilmer, 985.
Addition of limitation to claim, as distinguished from substitution of
is simply defining invention more narrowly. In re Muller, 748.
There is no statutory authority for rejecting claims as unnecessary;
references against all of them in his first action. In re Wakefield, 959.
Claim which is of such breadth that it reads on subject matter dis-
Inventor should be allowed to dominate future patentable inventions