§

Ex Parte Finegold

11979007 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)
Ex Parte Finegold

11 Cited authorities

  1. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S

    108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 344 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement

  2. In re Wright

    999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 91 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Relying on art published five years after filing date to show what was "sufficiently unpredictable" as of filing date

  3. Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Teva PHARMACEUTI.., Page 1318

    583 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 43 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the method of treatment claims at issue were not enabled “because the ... patent's application did not establish utility”

  4. In re Vaeck

    947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the examiner did not err in rejecting as nonenabled claims drawn to all genetically-engineered cyanobacteria expressing a given protein because the claimed 150 genera of cyanobacteria represent a vast, diverse, and poorly understood group; heterologous gene expression in cyanobacteria was "unpredictable"; and the patent's disclosure referred to only a genus

  5. Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

    413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 43 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Explaining "proof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation"

  6. In re Cortright

    165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the patent's written description must "illuminate a credible utility" to meet the enablement requirement

  7. In re Jolles

    628 F.2d 1322 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences "erred . . . by failing to give sufficient weight to the similarity of the remaining claimed derivatives to the derivative [that had been tested] . . . ."

  8. Application of Buting

    418 F.2d 540 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 8 times
    Treating cancer

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,329 times   1038 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 184 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622