§

Ex parte KRISHNAKUMAR et al.

08047047 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 1998)
Ex parte KRISHNAKUMAR et al.

19 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Adams

    383 U.S. 39 (1966)   Cited 479 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to ignore long-accepted factors in the field of wet batters to arrive at the claimed invention

  2. 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

  3. 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"

  4. Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc.

    730 F.2d 753 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times
    Demonstrating that every limitation of the claim is literally met by the accused device must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence

  5. Autogiro Company of America v. United States

    384 F.2d 391 (Fed. Cir. 1967)   Cited 353 times
    In Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 55, 384 F.2d 391, 397-98 (1967), the Court of Claims characterized the specification as "a concordance for the claims," based on the statutory requirement that the specification "describe the manner and process of making and using" the patented invention.

  6. 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

  7. Paper Bag Patent Case

    210 U.S. 405 (1908)   Cited 338 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Continental Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 415, 28 S.Ct. 748, 52 L.Ed. 1122 (1908) the Court affirmed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, stating that "the range of equivalents depends upon and varies with the degree of invention."

  8. Townsend Engineering Co. v. Hitec Co.

    829 F.2d 1086 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 59 times

    No. 87-1141. September 16, 1987. Donald H. Zarley, Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees Sease, Des Moines, Iowa, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on brief was Mark D. Hansing. James D. Jacobs, Rosen, Dainow Jacobs, New York City, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on brief, was Dennis M. Flaherty. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge

  9. White v. Dunbar

    119 U.S. 47 (1886)   Cited 215 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reiterating that an inventor's patent claims must “define precisely what his invention is,” because ambiguity is both “unjust to the public” and “an evasion of the law.”

  10. In re Vamco Mach. and Tool, Inc.

    752 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-1383. Reexamination No. 29795. January 17, 1985. Arland T. Stein, Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Frederick H. Colen and Tracey G. Benson, Pittsburgh, Pa. Henry W. Tarring, II, Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Jere W. Sears, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, Circuit

  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 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)