Ex parte Smythe, Jr.
6 Cited authorities
Wied v. Valhi, Inc.
465 U.S. 1026 (1984) Cited 260 timesStating that "[t]o demand a slavish adherence to the procedural sequence and to require these defendants, in this case, to articulate the words of renewal once the motion had been taken under advisement, would be 'to succumb to a nominalism and a rigid trial scenario as equally at variance as ambush with the spirit of the rules.'"
In re Paulsen
30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 232 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
713 F.2d 760 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 111 timesIn Kalman, this court determined that the district court's fact finding of identity of invention (reached after a four day bench trial) was not clearly erroneous, and that "the stipulation by the parties, coupled with [Kimberly Clark's] failure to counter Kalman's affidavits and evidence submitted in his motion for summary judgment" dictated a finding of infringement.
In re Spada
911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 58 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.
730 F.2d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 57 timesHolding that dependent claim "cannot be anticipated" where the independent claim "is not anticipated"
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,996 times 1001 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"