Wied v. Valhi, Inc.

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.'"

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

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"

In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital

Holding that patent claims "should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity"

Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

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.

In re Keller

Stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"

Application of Swinehart

Holding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear

Application of Johnson

Reversing rejection for inadequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but excluded two species of lost interference count

Application of Miller

Section 112 - Specification

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

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

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."

Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Section 1.142 - Requirement for restriction

Discussing requirement for restriction