Ex parte Mayer

10 Cited authorities

Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v. Am. Hoist
730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 199 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"
In re Kaslow
707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 74 times
Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)
Application of Wertheim
541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 81 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"
In re King
801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 46 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure
In re Wilder
736 F.2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 48 times
Finding reissue declaration's assertion of attorney error sufficient
Application of Smythe
480 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 46 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing circumstances in which a species may be representative of and therefore descriptive of genus 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,130 times 479 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."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,996 times 1001 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,494 times 2273 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Ex parte Mayer

10 Cited authorities

Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"

Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure

Finding reissue declaration's assertion of attorney error sufficient

Discussing circumstances in which a species may be representative of and therefore descriptive of genus 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

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

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."