12 Cited authorities
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 613 times 78 Legal AnalysesHolding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”
Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.
318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 323 timesHolding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar
935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 396 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements
In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.
367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 88 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter
In re Caveney
761 F.2d 671 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 113 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that under § 102(b), invention must be "on sale" in the United States
In re Morris
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 49 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness
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 7,394 times 1049 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 6,148 times 482 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 186 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 134 Cited 98 times 30 Legal Analyses(a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622
Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board
37 C.F.R. § 41.50 Cited 34 times 30 Legal AnalysesRequiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing