§

Ex parte GARCIA-MALLOL

08288864 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2000)
Ex parte GARCIA-MALLOL

25 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Adams

    383 U.S. 39 (1966)   Cited 481 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to ignore long-accepted factors in the field of wet batters to arrive at the claimed invention

  2. Wied v. Valhi, Inc.

    465 U.S. 1026 (1984)   Cited 260 times
    Stating 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.'"

  3. Smithkline Diagnostics v. Helena Laboratories

    859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 384 times
    Holding that an accused infringer's mis-marking of a product could not convert by estoppel an admittedly non-infringing product into an infringing product

  4. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

    849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 323 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is improper to read a limitation "into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim."

  5. Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc.

    730 F.2d 753 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times
    Demonstrating that every limitation of the claim is literally met by the accused device must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence

  6. Autogiro Company of America v. United States

    384 F.2d 391 (Fed. Cir. 1967)   Cited 354 times
    In Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 55, 384 F.2d 391, 397-98 (1967), the Court of Claims characterized the specification as "a concordance for the claims," based on the statutory requirement that the specification "describe the manner and process of making and using" the patented invention.

  7. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  8. Paper Bag Patent Case

    210 U.S. 405 (1908)   Cited 338 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Continental Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 415, 28 S.Ct. 748, 52 L.Ed. 1122 (1908) the Court affirmed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, stating that "the range of equivalents depends upon and varies with the degree of invention."

  9. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

    713 F.2d 760 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 111 times
    In 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.

  10. Hazani v. U.S. Intern. Trade Comm

    126 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that claim is not product-by-process claim if it "describes the product more by its structure than by the process used to obtain it"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  12. 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"

  13. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  14. 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)