DENSO CORPORATION

11 Cited authorities

Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated
190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 160 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized
Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. U.S. Surgical Corp.
93 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 144 times
Holding that the "plain meaning" of the claim at issue in that case would "not bear a reading" under which two different claim terms were construed as describing a single element
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v. Am. Hoist
730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 199 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"
In re Morris
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 49 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness
In re Smith Int'l, Inc.
871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 15 times 3 Legal Analyses
Reversing an anticipation rejection because it was predicated on an unreasonably broad claim construction
In re Crish
393 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 19 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 04-1075. December 21, 2004. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Peter G. Carroll, Medlen Carroll, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Brown. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and William G. Jenks, Associate Solicitor.
Fifth Generation Computer Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.
416 F. App'x 74 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 10 times
Agreeing that certain prior art references were incorporated into the host patent but disagreeing "that every concept of the prior inventions is necessarily imported into every claim of the later patent"
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,005 times 1001 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
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"
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
Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 1 Legal Analyses
(a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and

DENSO CORPORATION

11 Cited authorities

Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized

Holding that the "plain meaning" of the claim at issue in that case would "not bear a reading" under which two different claim terms were construed as describing a single element

Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"

Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

Reversing an anticipation rejection because it was predicated on an unreasonably broad claim construction

Agreeing that certain prior art references were incorporated into the host patent but disagreeing "that every concept of the prior inventions is necessarily imported into every claim of the later patent"

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

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"