 | United States. Patent Office - 1964 - 972 lapas
...Werres, 820. 66. SAME — SAME. — "The mandate of 35 USC 103 which has been ignored below is that 'the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art1 must be found to be obvious. Neither the Examiner nor the Board discussed the signiflcant and... | |
 | United States. Patent Office - 1957 - 464 lapas
...courts and in writing. Section 103 states this requirement in the title. It refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described in Section 102. If this difference is such that the subject... | |
 | United States - 1971 - 1040 lapas
...be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the...the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill... | |
 | United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary - 1951 - 246 lapas
...when the invention is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and that prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole [would have been obvious] inrolrcil more... | |
 | United States. Patent Office - 1952 - 170 lapas
...be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 ~of this title, if the differences between the...the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill... | |
 | United States. Patent Office - 1954 - 480 lapas
...effective while this appeal was pending.5 For it is clear to us that even if it be said that there are "differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art," they "are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time invention was... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1956 - 440 lapas
...and the Patent Office are controlled, or at least should be controlled, by section 103, viz : "* * * if the differences between the subject matter sought...the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Judiciary - 1956 - 536 lapas
...is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title [the prior art], if the differences between the subject matter sought...the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1956 - 444 lapas
...through the invention is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and that prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1957 - 1662 lapas
...though the invention is not identically disclosed or described in the material specified in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and said material are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention... | |
| |
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter... 
