Ex parte Kloster

9 Cited authorities

Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S
108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 346 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement
Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 337 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the claim term "relatively small" is not indefinite
Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. LTD
927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 273 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "at least about" was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent
In re Donaldson Co., Inc.
16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 206 times 6 Legal Analyses
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"
In re Morris
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 49 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness
In re Zletz
893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 42 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2
Application of Moore
439 F.2d 1232 (C.C.P.A. 1971) Cited 46 times
Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,362 times 1046 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
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 186 times 63 Legal Analyses
Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

Ex parte Kloster

9 Cited authorities

Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement

Holding that the claim term "relatively small" is not indefinite

Holding that the term "at least about" was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent

Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims

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

Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"