Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Ex Parte Hottovy et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. Rowe v. Dror

    112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 230 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "balloon angioplasty catheter" in preamble to claim was structural limitation

  2. Agilent Tech. v. Affymetrix

    567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 51 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's holding that an applicant's written description was adequate because the court erred in its claim construction

  3. Cultor v. A.E. Staley Manu. Co.

    224 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the claim term "water-soluble polydextrose" was expressly defined in the specification

  4. DeGeorge v. Bernier

    768 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that "resort to the specification is necessary only when there are ambiguities inherent in the claim language or obvious from arguments of counsel"

  5. In re Sasse

    629 F.2d 675 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when PTO cites disclosure that expressly discloses invention disclosed in patent application, applicant has the burden to show lack of an enabling disclosure

  6. Chester v. Miller

    906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 90-1039. June 29, 1990. Marina V. Schneller, Mobil Oil Corp., Fairfax, Va., argued, for appellants. With her on the brief, was Alexander J. McKillop. Thomas G. De Jonghe, Chevron Corp., San Francisco, Cal., argued, for appellees. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before MICHEL, Circuit Judge, BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WILL, Senior District Judge. The Honorable Hubert L. Will, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

  7. In re Spina

    975 F.2d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1358. September 15, 1992. David V. Trask, Trask, Britt Rossa, of Salt Lake City, Utah, submitted for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Va., submitted for appellee. With him on the brief were John W. Dewhirst and Jameson Lee, Associate Solicitors. Of counsel was Richard E. Schafer. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge

  8. Pingree v. Hull

    518 F.2d 624 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-623. June 26, 1975. John D. Pope III, St. Louis Mo., attorney of record, for appellants. Roland H. Shubert, attorney of record, for appellee. Joseph A. Hill and Martin Avin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. The senior party, Pingree and Batman (Pingree), appeals from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Interferences

  9. Dreyfus v. Sternau

    53 C.C.P.A. 1050 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7563. March 24, 1966. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D.C. (C. Edward Parker, Cambridge, Mass., of counsel), for appellants. John A. Blair, Detroit, Mich., James M. Heilman, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d)

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 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

  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 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by