§

Ex parte GENATOSSIO

29052369 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 1998)
Ex parte GENATOSSIO

38 Cited authorities

  1. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical

    520 U.S. 17 (1997)   Cited 1,721 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

  2. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.

    339 U.S. 605 (1950)   Cited 1,520 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

  3. Smithkline Diagnostics v. Helena Laboratories

    859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 380 times
    Holding that an accused infringer's mis-marking of a product could not convert by estoppel an admittedly non-infringing product into an infringing product

  4. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  5. Hilton Davis Chemical v. Warner-Jenkinson

    62 F.3d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 193 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires proof of insubstantial differences between the claimed and accused products"

  6. Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating Packing

    731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]n original patent cannot be infringed once a reissue patent has issued, for the original patent is surrendered" and "[t]he original claims are dead"

  7. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.

    758 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 210 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding “substantial evidence on which a reasonable jury could have found that the inventors were correctly named” despite conflicting trial testimony

  8. Norton v. Curtiss

    433 F.2d 779 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 142 times
    In Norton v. Curtiss, 57 C.C.P.A. 1384, 433 F.2d 779, 792-94 n. 12, 167 USPQ 532, 543-45 n. 12 (1970), our predecessor court explicitly distinguished inequitable conduct from "fraud," as that term was used by the Supreme Court in Walker Process.

  9. Rubenfield v. Watson

    362 U.S. 903 (1960)   Cited 47 times
    Applying Michigan law

  10. In re Mann

    861 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 61 times
    Holding the display of a wrought iron table at a trade show was prior public use

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 33 - Unauthorized representation as practitioner

    35 U.S.C. § 33   Cited 338 times

    Whoever, not being recognized to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office, holds himself out or permits himself to be held out as so recognized, or as being qualified to prepare or prosecute applications for patent, shall be fined not more than $1,000 for each offense. 35 U.S.C. § 33 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 796; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949. HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTESBased on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §11a (May 9, 1938, ch. 188, 52 Stat. 342).This is a criminal

  15. Section 171 - Patents for designs

    35 U.S.C. § 171   Cited 333 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Protecting "any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ...."

  16. 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"

  17. Section 1.153 - Title, description and claim, oath or declaration

    37 C.F.R. § 1.153   Cited 46 times   11 Legal Analyses
    In 37 C.F.R. 1.153, old rule 81 was incorporated, specifying that the title of the design designate the particular article, and more particularly showing that the claim is to the design for the article as shown and described.

  18. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)