35 U.S.C. § 7
Library
The Director shall maintain a library of scientific and other works and periodicals, both foreign and domestic, in the Patent and Trademark Office to aid the officers in the discharge of their duties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases, 1930–2020 · leading case: In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill & James G. Larsen, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill & James G. Larsen, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “§ 1295 (a)(4)(A)? If not, does this *1531 court have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the appealed decision? (3) What is the relationship, if any, between the “reconsideration” action taken in this case and “rehearings” by the Board provided for in 35 U.S.C. § 7 (b)?…”
In Re Robert J. Gartside & Richard C. Norton, 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Moreover, the “hearing” upon which the “record” is based is “provided by” 35 U.S.C. § 7 (b), which states that: The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall, on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents and shall…”
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 953 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “” 35 U.S.C. § 7 (1976); see also An Act to Amend Title 35, United States Code, 1 “An action may be taken against an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title by the agency in which the administrative law judge is em- ployed only for good cause…”
In re Haas, 486 F.2d 1053 (C.C.P.A. 1973). “” 1 We hold that the board erred in its denial of jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 134 and remand for review on the merits of the examiner’s action.”
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966). “As a member of the Board and the official responsible for selecting the membership of its panels, 35 U. S. C. § 7 (1964 ed.), the Commissioner may be appropriately considered as bound by Board determinations.”
Application of Arthur L. Reese, 359 F.2d 462 (C.C.P.A. 1966). “35 U.S.C. § 7 states: “The Board of Appeals has sole power to grant rehearings,” and 35 U.”
Application of Leo L. Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971). “He directs our attention to 35 U.S.C. § 7 which provides, inter alia, that the Board of Appeals, “on *1401 written appeal of the applicant, shall review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents.”
Kohler Co. v. Moen Inc., F/k/a Stanadyne, Inc., 12 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1993). “§ 6 (1988), Congress explicitly- granted the Commissioner the duty of administering the Act, including rule making.”
Jerry Gechter, Robert L. Pokress, Jeffrey A. Fried, & G. Wayne Andrews v. Wayne A. Davidson & Diana S. Winter, 116 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “See 35 U.S.C. § 7 (a) (1994) (“The examiners-in-chief shall be persons of competent legal knowledge_”).”
In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812 (C.C.P.A. 1977). “§ 141 is dependent upon the jurisdiction of the board under 35 U.S.C. § 7 , 9 viewed in light of 35 U.”
Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Sidney A. Diamond, Etc., 653 F.2d 701 (1st Cir. 1981). “See also 35 U.S.C. § 7 . Even assuming, however, that such decisions are not reviewable under section 134, the PTO’s administrative application of the fraud standard to reissue applications is not thereby rendered unsupportable.”
Application of John Edward James, 432 F.2d 473 (C.C.P.A. 1970). “, 35 U.S.C. § 7 . The action taken here, if dispositive, was so only in a procedural sense.”
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.