§

Ex Parte Wessels et al

09349214 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2004)
Ex Parte Wessels et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,364 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

  2. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 332 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  3. Northern Telecom v. Samsung Electronics

    215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that prosecution disclaimer did not "support the judicial narrowing of a clear claim term" because the inventors' statements were amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations

  4. Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd.

    208 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 173 times
    Holding that the allegedly anticipatory prior art references sufficiently raised a question of invalidity to deny a preliminary injunction, even though summary judgment of anticipation based on the same references was not supported

  5. In re Sang-Su Lee

    277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 105 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency tribunals "must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action"

  6. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  7. In re Robertson

    169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

  8. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  9. In re Fine

    837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."

  10. In re Piasecki

    745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 times   479 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,991 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"