12 Cited authorities
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar
935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 395 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements
Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Products
840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 75 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding that a patentee can prove infringement by showing that just "some samples" or even "a sample" of the product is found to meet all the limitations of a patent's claims
In re Fine
837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 67 times 1 Legal AnalysesReversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."
In re Kaslow
707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 74 timesHolding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)
Ex Parte Porter
827 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) Cited 41 timesHolding that the State need only allege in an indictment that defendant forged a writing with intent to defraud or harm another and that additional language, including language from section 32.21 of the penal code, in the forgery allegation contained in the indictment is surplusage
In re Rijckaert
9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 22 times 4 Legal AnalysesNo. 93-1206. November 23, 1993. Edward W. Goodman, North American Philips Corp., of Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Algy Tamoshunas. Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the
Application of Swinehart
439 F.2d 210 (C.C.P.A. 1971) Cited 42 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear
Application of Johnson
558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesReversing rejection for inadequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but excluded two species of lost interference count
Application of Warner
379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967) Cited 22 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,363 times 1046 Legal AnalysesRequiring 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
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,130 times 479 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction
37 C.F.R. § 1.142 Cited 25 times 2 Legal AnalysesDiscussing requirement for restriction