Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it
Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."
Finding no indefiniteness despite failure to specify which method should be used to measure ultraviolet transmittance because all conventional methods produced “essentially identical results”
Holding that the appellant, who was the first to achieve a potency of greater than 1.0 for adrenocorticotrophic hormones ("ACTHs"), had not enabled the preparation of ACTHs having potencies much greater than 2.3, and the claim recitations of potency of "at least 1" rendered the claims insufficiently supported under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
Concluding a compound was undisputedly taught in the prior art and then determining that additional limitations that merely "set forth the intended use for, or a property inherent in, an otherwise old composition . . . do not differentiate the claimed composition from those known to the prior art"
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
Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"