§

Ex parte Baehler

08484729 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 1998)
Ex parte Baehler

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 340 times   43 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."

  2. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  3. In re Dossel

    115 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the written description at issue was sufficiently definite, even though “the written description d[id] not disclose exactly what mathematical algorithm w[ould] be used to compute the end result, ” when “it d[id] state that ‘known algorithms' c[ould] be used to solve standard equations which [we]re known in the art”

  4. Application of Cohn

    438 F.2d 989 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 15 times
    Finding claim term indefinite where the patentee's conflicting use of the term rendered the scope of the claims uncertain

  5. Application of Hammack

    427 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 12 times
    Finding claims invalid for indefiniteness where claims “serv[ed] as a shadowy framework upon which are located words lacking in precise referents in the specification”

  6. Application of Scarbrough

    500 F.2d 560 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9249. June 27, 1974. Nathan Cass, Westlake Village, Cal., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection, for insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of all the

  7. Application of Wilson

    424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the court cannot ignore the specific language in a claim

  8. Application of Steele

    305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"