§

Ex Parte Pitts et al

10796814 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2007)
Ex Parte Pitts et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 354 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

  2. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 394 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  3. Lemelson v. TRW, Inc.

    760 F.2d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 52 times
    Fact-finding is an inappropriate exercise on summary judgment; "[i]f a dispute requiring a finding exists as to any material fact, summary judgment is improper."

  4. In re Wilder

    736 F.2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Finding reissue declaration's assertion of attorney error sufficient

  5. In re Chu

    66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reference was properly considered prior art because the earlier filed application did not support the patent's claims, thereby precluding reliance on its earlier priority date

  6. In re Ziegler

    992 F.2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 17 times

    No. 91-1430. April 21, 1993. Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined June 29, 1993. Arnold Sprung, Sprung, Horn, Kramer Woods, Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were Nathaniel D. Kramer and Alan J. Grant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Adriene B. Lepiane. Paul E. Crawford and George Pazuniak, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, Wilmington, DE, were on the brief, for amicus curiae, Aristech Chemical Corp.

  7. Application of Lukach

    442 F.2d 967 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 44 times
    Recognizing that there are "anomalies between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures" and citing Hafner as an example

  8. Langer v. Kaufman

    465 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 23 times
    In Langer, the court extended Heard to provide that where there is an objective basis for identifying the novel features of an invention, there must be evidence that the inventor timely considered it. The facts of the Langer interference were essentially identical to those in Heard: the invention called for a catalyst using a particular crystalline compound, and as defined in the count the new compound was identified by a characteristic x-ray diffraction pattern.

  9. Sticker Industrial Sup. Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co.

    405 F.2d 90 (7th Cir. 1968)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "each application in a long chain grows out of the one immediately preceding it"

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,350 times   1046 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

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,991 times   1000 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 600 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  14. 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