§

Ex parte Garcia et al.

08052212 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 16, 1998)
Ex parte Garcia et al.

5 Cited authorities

  1. In re Ochiai

    71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-1446. December 11, 1995. Harold C. Wegner, Foley Lardner, of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Herbert I. Cantor and Douglas P. Mueller. Of counsel was Don J. Pelto. Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, Lee E. Barrett, Associate Solicitor, John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor and Richard E. Schafer, Associate Solicitor

  2. Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp.

    685 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 18 times
    In Pfizer, we affirmed the district court's denial of the unclean-hands defense because the defendant-appellants had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Pfizer had misrepresented facts related to patentability.

  3. In re Brouwer

    77 F.3d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 3 times
    In Riddell, this Court rejected an argument that the complaint violated Rule 8 by lumping all defendants together without specifying the alleged misconduct of each defendant, because it was "apparent" that the claims were asserted against all defendants "for their concerted conduct under the 'Riddell' brand."

  4. Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp.

    545 F. Supp. 486 (C.D. Cal. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    No. 73-58-PENCE. June 12, 1980. As Corrected August 8, 1980. Robert E. Cooper, James R. Martin, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., Edgar H. Martin, Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Peter R. Cohen, Cohen Ehrmann, Beverly Hills, Cal., Marc S. Gross, Hubbell, Cohen, Stiefel Gross, New York City, for defendants. ("CORRECTED" ) DECISION After this court's decision was filed, a number of typographical, et al. errors were noted by counsel. This "court-corrected decision" does

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."