Ex Parte Tran et al
18 Cited authorities
Wied v. Valhi, Inc.
465 U.S. 1026 (1984) Cited 260 timesStating that "[t]o demand a slavish adherence to the procedural sequence and to require these defendants, in this case, to articulate the words of renewal once the motion had been taken under advisement, would be 'to succumb to a nominalism and a rigid trial scenario as equally at variance as ambush with the spirit of the rules.'"
Computervision Corp. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp.
469 U.S. 857 (1984) Cited 154 timesApplying Federal Circuit law on review of denial of post-verdict motion
Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A
868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 391 timesHolding that the phrase "[a]n optical waveguide" in the preamble of the claim language was meant to limit claim scope to "optical waveguides" rather than all optical fibers because the "specification [made it] clear that the inventors were working on the particular problem of an . . . optical communication system not on general improvements in conventional optical fibers"
Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.
948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 335 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”
Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp.
732 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 370 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that when "a court does not discuss certain propositions," that "does not make the decision inadequate or suggest the court failed to understand them"
In re Paulsen
30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 232 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif
814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 138 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
713 F.2d 760 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 111 timesIn Kalman, this court determined that the district court's fact finding of identity of invention (reached after a four day bench trial) was not clearly erroneous, and that "the stipulation by the parties, coupled with [Kimberly Clark's] failure to counter Kalman's affidavits and evidence submitted in his motion for summary judgment" dictated a finding of infringement.
In re Oelrich
666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 94 times 6 Legal AnalysesStating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )
In re Piasecki
745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 73 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding nonobviousness where the evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a longstanding problem
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,172 times 492 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 6,033 times 1028 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"