§
Ex Parte Costa

13 Cited authorities

  1. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 342 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim invalid as anticipated when it claimed compounds in Markush form and a prior art reference disclosed one of the claimed compounds

  2. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  3. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 149 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  4. Standard Havens Products v. Gencor Indus

    953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding method claims were not directly infringed by the mere sale of an apparatus capable of performing the claimed process

  5. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.

    780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 57 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Affirming anticipation determination where a person of skill in the art would "at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination"

  6. In re Donohue

    766 F.2d 531 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 85 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a non-enabled disclosure will not suffice as § 102 prior art

  7. 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

  8. Application of Robeson

    51 C.C.P.A. 1271 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 50 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7094. May 14, 1964. Abner Sheffer, Michael G. Gilman, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Robeson appeals from the board's affirmance of the rejection of claims 2 to 31, all the claims of his application for a patent on a chemical process. Serial No. 614,805, filed October 9

  9. Application of Preda

    401 F.2d 825 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8016. October 24, 1968. Wenderoth, Lind Ponack, A. Ponak, Washington, D.C. (John T. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 7 and 8 of application serial No. 269,707

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,530 times   2291 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  12. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  13. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by