 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...  Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports - 901. lappuseautors: United States. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals - 1963Pilnskats - Par šo grāmatu
 | United States. Court of Claims, Audrey Bernhardt - 1958 - 966 lapas
...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...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 - 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 - 2000 - 1208 lapas
...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...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 - 1952 - 170 lapas
...invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 ~of this title, 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. 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. Judiciary - 1956 - 536 lapas
...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 - 440 lapas
...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...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 - 1957 - 1662 lapas
...the Invention Is not Identically disclosed or described as set forth In wctlon 102 of this title, If the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art mre such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the Invention was made... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Judiciary - 1960 - 1034 lapas
...This is for the reason that, even though an invention is "new and useful" it is not patentable "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... | |
| |
