§

Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al. V. GALETTO et al. V. Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al.

15606995 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2020)
Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al. V. GALETTO et al. V. Jantz et al. V. Jantz et al.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,780 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 597 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Lilly & Co.

    119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 333 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that written description requires more than a "mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention"

  4. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 301 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  5. Rowe v. Dror

    112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 225 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "balloon angioplasty catheter" in preamble to claim was structural limitation

  6. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 167 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  7. Carnegie Mellon v. Hoffmann-La

    541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 90 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the narrow description of the E. coli polA gene did not adequately support a broad claim to the gene from any bacterial source

  8. Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis

    448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 87 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where “accessible literature sources clearly provided” a description of the teachings at issue, the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference

  9. Capon v. Eshhar

    418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 68 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was error for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to require "recitation in the specification of the nucleotide sequence of claimed DNA, when that sequence is already known in the field"

  10. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.

    214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 73 times
    In Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the court explained the need "to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification."

  11. 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,105 times   470 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."

  13. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  14. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1