What legal precedents support the USPTO’s handling of untimely papers in ex parte reexamination?
The USPTO’s handling of untimely papers in ex parte reexamination is supported by several legal precedents. MPEP 2225 cites the following cases: Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 771 F.2d 480, 226 USPQ 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In re Knight, 217 USPQ 294 (Comm’r Pat. 1982) In re Amp, 212 USPQ 826 (Comm’r Pat. 1981) These…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the ‘In re Marzocchi’ case in patent law regarding predictability and enablement?
The ‘In re Marzocchi’ case is significant in patent law for its discussion of predictability and enablement, particularly in the field of chemistry. According to MPEP 2164.03, which cites this case: “[I]n the field of chemistry generally, there may be times when the well-known unpredictability of chemical reactions will alone be enough to create a…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of Ex parte Hildebrand in relation to biological material deposits?
The case of Ex parte Hildebrand, 15 USPQ2d 1662 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) is mentioned in MPEP 2410.01 in the context of biological material deposits. This case is significant because it reinforces the requirement that all restrictions on access to deposited biological material must be removed upon patent grant, with only the specific…
Read More