§

Ex parte Eicken et al.

08117013 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2000)
Ex parte Eicken et al.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.

    793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 272 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sales of product with instructions to use product in an infringing manner may constitute circumstantial evidence that customers would use the product in the manner directed

  2. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries Corp.

    75 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no indefiniteness despite failure to specify which method should be used to measure ultraviolet transmittance because all conventional methods produced “essentially identical results”

  3. Mannesmann Demag v. Engineered Metal Prod

    793 F.2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 158 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an overall transitional phrase does not trump later transitional language

  4. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  5. In re Mills

    916 F.2d 680 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    No. 90-1184. October 9, 1990. James C. Wray, McLean, Va., argued for appellant. Muriel E. Crawford, Asst. Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Inferences. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the November 2, 1989, decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

  6. Application of Royka

    490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing that if an independent claim is not anticipated, its dependent claims are also not anticipated

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"