§

Dominique Quesselaire et al.

14594842 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2019)
Dominique Quesselaire et al.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 638 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  2. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  3. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 305 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  4. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.

    230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the disclosure does not have to provide in kaec verba support in order to satisfy the written description requirement

  5. Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield

    208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the application need only contain information sufficient for “persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed”

  6. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.

    214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 75 times
    In Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the court explained the need "to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification."

  7. In re Gosteli

    872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 78 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]he CCPA's later decisions control because that court always sat en banc”

  8. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  9. Application of Edwards

    568 F.2d 1349 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 17 times

    Appeal No. 77-532. January 12, 1978. As Amended January 18, 1978. James L. Bailey, Houston, Tex., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the final

  10. 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

  11. 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"

  12. 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