§

Ex Parte Ruesch

09620679 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 16, 2003)
Ex Parte Ruesch

8 Cited authorities

  1. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 975 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  2. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix

    308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 764 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an alleged prior user's testimony for lack of corroboration when the only contemporaneous corroborating evidence offered was an unissued patent application

  3. Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.

    274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 456 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim term "portion" may be interpreted to encompass both "separate" or "integral"

  4. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  5. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  6. Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated

    190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 163 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized

  7. In re Etter

    756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 122 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that whether one prior art reference can be incorporated into another is "basically irrelevant."

  8. 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"