Ex Parte Braun

10 Cited authorities

American Calcar v. American Honda Motor Co.
651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 126 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that the term "in response to" connotes that the second events occurs in reaction to the first event."
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"
In re Schreiber
128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 150 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex
550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 109 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding selection and undertaking of the arduous separation of a particular racemate could be judged obvious only with hindsight knowledge that a dextrorotatory enantiomer has certain desirable properties
Therasense v. Becton
593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 68 times
Concluding that "[t]he erroneous jury instruction on the law of anticipation" did not upend a verdict of invalidity based on " 'anticipation or obviousness' " because the jury could have found the patents obvious
Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.
668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 54 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that while the disclosure of a broad genus does not disclose every species within that genus, where there is "no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range" the disclosure of the range in the prior art discloses the value within the range
In re Bond
910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 57 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand
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 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 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"

Ex Parte Braun

10 Cited authorities

Finding that the term "in response to" connotes that the second events occurs in reaction to the first event."

Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

Holding selection and undertaking of the arduous separation of a particular racemate could be judged obvious only with hindsight knowledge that a dextrorotatory enantiomer has certain desirable properties

Concluding that "[t]he erroneous jury instruction on the law of anticipation" did not upend a verdict of invalidity based on " 'anticipation or obviousness' " because the jury could have found the patents obvious

Holding that while the disclosure of a broad genus does not disclose every species within that genus, where there is "no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range" the disclosure of the range in the prior art discloses the value within the range

Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

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"

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"