11 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.'"
W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock
721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 326 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"
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.
U.S. v. Telectronics, Inc.
857 F.2d 778 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 89 timesHolding that district court cannot construct limitations of a broader claim so that they are the same as the limitations of a narrower claim
In re Fine
837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 67 times 1 Legal AnalysesReversing the Board's determination that dependent claims were invalid because "[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."
Application of Johnson
558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesReversing rejection for inadequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but excluded two species of lost interference count
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
Application of Stephens
529 F.2d 1343 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 5 timesPatent Appeal No. 75-599. February 19, 1976. Charles E. Wills, Los Angeles, Cal. (Wills, Green Mueth, Los Angeles, Cal.), attorneys of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,362 times 1046 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 6,130 times 479 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 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"