14 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.'"
Scripps Clinic Research Fdn. v. Genentech
927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 452 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that such claims are not limited by the process
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar
935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 397 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements
Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.
948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 334 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”
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.
In re Oelrich
666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 94 times 5 Legal AnalysesStating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )
In re Kaslow
707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 75 timesHolding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.
730 F.2d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 59 timesHolding that dependent claim "cannot be anticipated" where the independent claim "is not anticipated"
In re Strahilevitz
668 F.2d 1229 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 9 timesAppeal No. 81-563. January 15, 1982. J. Philip Polster, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. The decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") sustaining the rejection of claims 36-48 as unsupported by an adequate disclosure required
Hansgirg v. Kemmer
102 F.2d 212 (C.C.P.A. 1939) Cited 57 times 3 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 4077. February 27, 1939. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals, Interference No. 73,230. Interference proceeding between Fritz Hansgirg and Frank R. Kemmer. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming decision of the Examiner of Interferences, the former appeals. Reversed. Brown, Critchlow Flick, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Jo. Baily Brown and Fulton B. Flick, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellant. H.C. Bierman, of New York City,
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,413 times 1065 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,025 times 1027 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 1.75 - Claim(s)
37 C.F.R. § 1.75 Cited 113 times 12 Legal AnalysesSetting forth proper drafts for independent and dependent claims
Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction
37 C.F.R. § 1.142 Cited 25 times 2 Legal AnalysesDiscussing requirement for restriction