§

Ex parte Fujisaki et al.

08108499 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2000)
Ex parte Fujisaki et al.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 335 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  2. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  3. In re Robertson

    169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

  4. Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp.

    468 U.S. 1228 (1984)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that, when viewed in context, plaintiff's counsel's "Golden Rule" and other improper arguments did not prejudice defendants

  5. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  6. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.

    730 F.2d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that dependent claim "cannot be anticipated" where the independent claim "is not anticipated"

  7. Application of Smythe

    480 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing circumstances in which a species may be representative of and therefore descriptive of genus claims

  8. Application of Higbee

    527 F.2d 1405 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-631. January 29, 1976. John W. Melville, Melville, Strasser, Foster Hoffman, Cincinnati, Ohio, of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Rich, J. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals affirming

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,422 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

  10. 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."

  11. 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"