§

Ex parte Gerfast et al.

08161978 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 1998)
Ex parte Gerfast et al.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 472 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  2. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 395 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  3. U.S. v. Telectronics, Inc.

    857 F.2d 778 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that district court cannot construct limitations of a broader claim so that they are the same as the limitations of a narrower claim

  4. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  5. Application of Lukach

    442 F.2d 967 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 44 times
    Recognizing that there are "anomalies between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures" and citing Hafner as an example

  6. In re Buchner

    929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 16 times
    Ruling that "an expert's opinion on the ultimate legal issue [of enablement] must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement."

  7. In re Anderson

    471 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 19 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8837. January 26, 1973. S. Augustus Demma, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the Patent Office Board of Appeals decision affirming the rejection of claims 1-10, all claims of application serial No. 642,294, filed May

  8. Application of Higbee

    527 F.2d 1405 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-631. January 29, 1976. John W. Melville, Melville, Strasser, Foster Hoffman, Cincinnati, Ohio, of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Rich, J. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals affirming

  9. 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

  10. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 309 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting addition of "new matter"