§

Desjardins et al. V. Wax et al.

13551348 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2014)
Desjardins et al. V. Wax et al.

36 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,574 times   189 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 508 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  3. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S

    108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 352 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement

  4. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

    774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 459 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ ” and the “actual inventor's skill is irrelevant” to the obviousness inquiry

  5. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 345 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  6. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. LTD

    927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 273 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "at least about" was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent

  7. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc.

    188 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 136 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reasonable amount of experimentation does not invalidate a patent, but undue experimentation does invalidate, and holding that the Wands factors, which determine whether a patent's disclosure is insufficient such that the experimentation required would be undue, apply to inter partes litigation

  8. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.

    112 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 137 times
    Holding that in construing the count, the court "must look at the language as a whole and consider the grammatical structure and syntax"

  9. National Recovery v. Magnetic Sep. Sys

    166 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the facts of that case, the dependent claims were invalid solely because their independent claim was invalid

  10. Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis

    448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 89 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where “accessible literature sources clearly provided” a description of the teachings at issue, the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1066 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 6,172 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,030 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 604 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  15. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  16. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 271 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  17. Section 112 - Statutes at Large; contents; admissibility in evidence

    1 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 53 times
    Stating that the "Statutes at Large shall be legal evidence of laws"

  18. Section 41.121 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.121   Cited 15 times   77 Legal Analyses

    (a)Types of motions - (1)Substantive motions. Consistent with the notice of requested relief, if any, and to the extent the Board authorizes, a party may file a motion: (i) To redefine the scope of the contested case, (ii) To change benefit accorded for the contested subject matter, or (iii) For judgment in the contested case. (2)Responsive motions. The Board may authorize a party to file a motion to amend or add a claim, to change inventorship, or otherwise to cure a defect raised in a notice of

  19. Section 41.201 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.201   Cited 15 times   15 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in §§ 41.2 and 41.100 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Accord benefit means Board recognition that a patent application provides a proper constructive reduction to practice under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) . Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) , in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive

  20. Section 41.207 - Presumptions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.207   Cited 13 times   19 Legal Analyses

    (a)Priority - (1)Order of invention. Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. If two parties are accorded the benefit of the same earliest date of constructive reduction to practice, then neither party is entitled to a presumption of priority with respect to the other such party. (2)Evidentiary standard. Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except a party must prove priority by clear and

  21. Section 41.208 - Content of substantive and responsive motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.208   Cited 6 times   60 Legal Analyses

    The general requirements for motions in contested cases are stated at § 41.121(c) . (a) In an interference, substantive motions must: (1) Raise a threshold issue, (2) Seek to change the scope of the definition of the interfering subject matter or the correspondence of claims to the count, (3) Seek to change the benefit accorded for the count, or (4) Seek judgment on derivation or on priority. (b) To be sufficient, a motion must provide a showing, supported with appropriate evidence, such that, if