enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Title 35 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United...

    35 U.S.C. § 103 describes the condition of patentability referred to as non-obviousness. This provides that a patentable invention must not have been obvious to a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) in view of the appropriate prior art. The most important judicial decision in interpreting 35 USC 103 is Graham v. John Deere Co.

  3. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_of_Patent_Examining...

    The current version of the MPEP is the 9th Edition, which was released in March 2014. The MPEP has traditionally been available in paper form, but electronic versions are now used more often, particularly because an applicant only may consult the electronic versions while taking the USPTO registration examination, or the patent bar examination ...

  4. Inter partes review - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_partes_review

    An inter partes review is used to challenge the patentability of one or more claims in a U.S. patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 (non-obviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. [3]

  5. Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more.

  6. Unity of invention - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_invention

    Thus, according to MPEP, the claims in a patent application may be properly restricted to (i.e. split into) two or more divisional patent applications, if the claims (i.e. claimed inventions) are either independent (MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01) or distinct (MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)).

  7. Reexamination - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination

    A request for a reexamination can be filed by anyone at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent. To request a reexamination, one must submit a "request for reexamination" which includes (1) a statement pointing out each "substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications; (2) an identification and explanation for every claim for which ...

  8. Diamond v. Diehr - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr

    Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that controlling the execution of a physical process, by running a computer program did not preclude patentability of the invention as a whole.

  9. Play Just Words Online for Free - AOL.com

    www.aol.com/games/play/masque-publishing/just-words

    Just Words. If you love Scrabble, you'll love the wonderful word game fun of Just Words. Play Just Words free online! By Masque Publishing