§
Ex Parte Lee

18 Cited authorities

  1. Process Control Corp. v. Hydreclaim Corp.

    190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims inoperable because they violate the principle of conservation of mass

  2. Union Pac. Res. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.

    236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the term "comparing" indefinite

  3. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.

    214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 75 times
    In Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the court explained the need "to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification."

  4. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Board of Regents

    334 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 46 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing an identical interpretation

  5. Application of Lukach

    442 F.2d 967 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 44 times
    Recognizing that there are "anomalies between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures" and citing Hafner as an example

  6. Application of Koller

    613 F.2d 819 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 79-589. January 24, 1980. Roger L. Browdy, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Harry I. Moatz, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NEWMAN, Judges. The Honorable Bernard Newman, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal

  7. Weil v. Fritz

    572 F.2d 856 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 77-557. January 26, 1978. Daniel C. Block, Richmond, Cal., Edward D. Weil, attorneys of record, for appellant, Jerry D. Voight, Herbert H. Mintz, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow Garrett, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Alan H. Bernstein, Stanley H. Cohen, Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein Cohen, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pa., attys. of record, for appellees. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences of United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and

  8. Application of Gardner

    475 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that an original claim sufficiently described itself, and that "[n]othing more is necessary for compliance with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112"

  9. Hunt v. Treppschuh

    523 F.2d 1386 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 11 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where a "parent application is relied upon as a prior constructive reduction to practice . . . the § 112, first paragraph requirements need only be met for an embodiment within the count"

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,423 times   1070 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 6,174 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."

  12. 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"

  13. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,413 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  14. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  15. Section 11 - Exchange of copies of patents and applications with foreign countries

    35 U.S.C. § 11   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) IN GENERAL.-The Director may exchange copies of specifications and drawings of United States patents and published applications for patents for those of foreign countries. The Director shall not enter into an agreement to provide such copies of specifications and drawings of United States patents and applications to a foreign country, other than a USMCA country or a WTO member country, without the express authorization of the Secretary of Commerce. (b) DEFINITIONS.-In this section- (1) the term

  16. Section 12 - Copies of patents and applications for public libraries

    35 U.S.C. § 12   Cited 7 times

    The Director may supply copies of specifications and drawings of patents and published applications for patents in printed or electronic form to public libraries in the United States which shall maintain such copies for the use of the public, at the rate for each year's issue established for this purpose in section 41(d). 35 U.S.C. § 12 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 794, §13; Pub. L. 97-247, §15, Aug. 27, 1982, 96 Stat. 321; renumbered §12 and amended Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title

  17. Section 1.56 - Duty to disclose information material to patentability

    37 C.F.R. § 1.56   Cited 865 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Adopting broad standard of materiality requiring that information not be cumulative

  18. Section 1.601 - Filing of papers in supplemental examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.601   Cited 40 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Defining the term "interference"