35 U.S.C. § 131
Examination of application
The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Kappos v. Hyatt, 132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012).
Kappos v. Hyatt, 132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012). “Argued January 9, 2012—Decided April 18, 2012 Under the Patent Act of 1952, if a Patent and Trade Office (PTO) exam- iner denies a patent application, 35 U. S. C. §131 , the applicant may file an administrative appeal with the PTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences,…”
Inre: Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The grounds for this holding derive from a combina- tion of the USPTO’s examination function under 35 U.S.C. § 131 et seq. and the substantive standard of 35 U.”
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien Lp, 812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “, 35 U.S.C. § 131 (“the Director shall issue a patent”); § 132(a) (“the Director shall notify the applicant” of a rejection of a patent application); § 251(a) (“the Director shall” reissue amended patents).”
In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill & James G. Larsen, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “§ 6 (1988), cause an examination to be made of an application, 35 U.S.C. § 131 (1988), declare an interference, 35 U.”
Pregis Corp. v. Kappos, 700 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Pregis asserts a right to challenge two distinct aspects of a PTO “decision to issue” a patent: 1) the PTO’s stated reasons for allowing the claims during examination under 35 U.S.C. § 131 , and 2) the issuance of the patent itself.”
In Re Robert D. Jerabek, 789 F.2d 886 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “56 (a), under 35 U.S.C. §§ 131 and 132. Additionally, claim 11 of the ’526 reissue application was rejected as anticipated under 35 U.”
Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. & E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “07 (requiring further examination of continuation applications); (4) 35 U.S.C. § 131 (requiring examination of each application); (5) the examiner’s search notes; (6) the examiner’s initialing of the prior art statement; (7) the presence of seven never-before-examined claims;…”
Hyatt v. United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 146 F. Supp. 3d 771 (E.D. Va. 2015). “” 35 U.S.C. § 131 . Typically, such an examination is undertaken by a patent examiner with relevant scientific or technical competence, who reviews each proposed claim in the application for novelty, support in the specification’s written description, and compliance with other…”
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., A/K/A Smc Corp., & Smc Pneumatics, Inc., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “See 35 U.S.C. § 131 (1994) (“Examination of application”); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §§ 701, 702 (7th ed.”
E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co., Inc., E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 1247 (8th Cir. 1980). “35 U.S.C. § 131 (1976) provides: 32 . 37 C.”
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. v. Pentech Pharm., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003). “A patent examiner has no discretion to deny a patent that satisfies the criteria of patentability, 35 U.S.C. § 131 ; see 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 (c), and so the withholding from him of immaterial information could not, as a matter of law, affect the validity of the patent.”
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 898 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “1690 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 131 ). If the examiner denies the application, the applicant may then file an administrative appeal with the PTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.