HANWHA TECHWIN CO., LTD.

25 Cited authorities

Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 16,262 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 619 times 79 Legal Analyses
Holding 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]”
Service v. Dulles
354 U.S. 363 (1957) Cited 583 times
Holding that "[w]hile the Secretary was not obligated to impose upon himself these more rigorous substantive and procedural standards . . . having done so he could not, so long as the Regulations remained unchanged, proceed without regard to them"
Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc.
413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 366 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption established by claim differentiation was rebutted because the written description “consistently” referred to the claim term in a specific manner and arguments made during prosecution amounted to a clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope
Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated
190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 163 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized
Jones v. Hardy
727 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 122 times
In Jones, this court reversed the district court's conclusion of obviousness because probative facts were not in dispute, no credibility determinations needed to be made, and the litigation had been going on for ten years.
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L
353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 66 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, without any of the necessary factual determinations underlying an obviousness inquiry, the appellate court could not undertake any review in the first instance
In re Robertson
169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 65 times
Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art
In re Morris
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 49 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness
In re Jung
637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 24 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,420 times 1069 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
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,172 times 492 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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,033 times 1028 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination
35 U.S.C. § 132 Cited 310 times 47 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting addition of "new matter"
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 times 63 Legal Analyses
Giving 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 99 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 1.75 - Claim(s)
37 C.F.R. § 1.75 Cited 114 times 12 Legal Analyses
Setting forth proper drafts for independent and dependent claims
Section 1.104 - Nature of examination
37 C.F.R. § 1.104 Cited 53 times 9 Legal Analyses
Providing reasons for patent examiner's rejection of claims, including rejection for prior art "unless the entire rights to the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the same person . . ."
Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 1 Legal Analyses
(a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and

HANWHA TECHWIN CO., LTD.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny

Holding 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]”

Holding that "[w]hile the Secretary was not obligated to impose upon himself these more rigorous substantive and procedural standards . . . having done so he could not, so long as the Regulations remained unchanged, proceed without regard to them"

Holding that the presumption established by claim differentiation was rebutted because the written description “consistently” referred to the claim term in a specific manner and arguments made during prosecution amounted to a clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope

Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized

In Jones, this court reversed the district court's conclusion of obviousness because probative facts were not in dispute, no credibility determinations needed to be made, and the litigation had been going on for ten years.

Holding that, without any of the necessary factual determinations underlying an obviousness inquiry, the appellate court could not undertake any review in the first instance

Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

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

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Prohibiting addition of "new matter"

Giving 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"

Setting forth proper drafts for independent and dependent claims

Providing reasons for patent examiner's rejection of claims, including rejection for prior art "unless the entire rights to the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the same person . . ."