35 U.S.C. § 102(B) Statutory Bar

10 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Application of Richard G. Smith
  458 F.2d 1389· C.C.P.A.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the patent claims were properly rejected as obvious over prior art and that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date due to insufficient disclosure.
• Application of George H. Hitchings
  342 F.2d 80· C.C.P.A.· 1965-03-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an unappealed final rejection by a patent examiner should not be considered res judicata, and that the parent application's disclosure of utility was sufficient to entitle it to an earlier filing date.
• Application of Ralph A. Ruscetta and Alfred L. Jenny
  255 F.2d 687· C.C.P.A.· 1958-05-29 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the British patent specification, published more than one year before the filing of the appellants' application, constitutes a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to the appealed claims, as those claims were first supported by the later application and invo
• Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Plasser Am. Corp.
  747 F.2d 1567· Fed. Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Canron opinion should not be read as holding that lifting between the axles was necessary to uphold the patent's validity.
• Application of BO Thuresson AF Ekenstam
  256 F.2d 321· C.C.P.A.· 1958-06-24 ·cited 14×
  A foreign patent is only a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as of its publication date, not its grant date, if it remains secret until publication.
• Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Solo CUP Co., Inc.
  461 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1972-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an inventor's own prior disclosure of an invention, made within one year of a subsequent related patent application, does not constitute prior art against that later application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
• In re Katz
  687 F.2d 450· C.C.P.A.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that coauthorship is sufficient to infer coinventorship, establishing a prima facie case that a publication is prior art, and that the applicant's declaration did not rebut this case.
• In re the Application of Bruno Blaser
  556 F.2d 534· C.C.P.A.· 1977-06-09 ·cited 6×
• Application of Arthur E. Middleton and Donald C. Reynolds
  319 F.2d 552· C.C.P.A.· 1963-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that the linking application supported the appealed claims and that the Middleton patent was not available as a reference against the appellants.
• Application of Karl Folkers
  344 F.2d 967· C.C.P.A.· 1965-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the applicant's patent application was rejected on grounds not properly before the court.