§
Ex parte Lin

6 Cited authorities

  1. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,398 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

  2. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd.

    78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 326 times
    Holding that a "technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention, unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning"

  3. Hormone Research Foundation v. Genentech

    904 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 184 times
    Finding that a patent for synthetic human growth hormone would not be invalid for lack of enablement "[m]erely because purer and more potent forms of the Figure 2 compound might be produced using later-discovered technology. . . ."

  4. Application of Hill

    161 F.2d 367 (C.C.P.A. 1947)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5277. April 22, 1947. Rehearing Denied May 29, 1947. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 510,512. Proceedings in the matter of the application of Lyman P. Hill for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the examiner rejecting certain claims of the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Keith Misegades, of New York City (Rolf E. Schneider, of New York City, of

  5. 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."

  6. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622