Ex Parte Youman et al

12 Cited authorities

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,575 times 189 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"
Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm
161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 523 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6
Lighting World v. Birchwood Lighting
382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 268 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"
Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 287 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not apply to the term “detent mechanism,” because “the noun ‘detent’ denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are expressed in functional terms.”
Ma. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Soft
462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 188 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it is appropriate for us to look to dictionary definitions of the terms" where "the specification does not define the term" and "the most that can be said is that the specification is not inconsistent" with the proposed constructions by the parties
Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos
697 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 53 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that “height adjustment mechanism” imparts sufficient structure so that the presumption against applying § 112, ¶ 6 is not overcome
In re Youman
679 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 17 times 2 Legal Analyses
Explaining that section 251's “error” requirement covers “inadvertence or mistake,” not “deliberate” choices made by the patentee
In re Mostafazadeh
643 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 15 times 2 Legal Analyses
Applying step three's “materially narrowing” analysis “relative to the original claims” where “original claims” are defined as “the claims before surrender”
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,420 times 1069 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 6,172 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."
Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents
35 U.S.C. § 251 Cited 467 times 73 Legal Analyses
Describing the reissue of defective patents
Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board
37 C.F.R. § 41.50 Cited 34 times 30 Legal Analyses
Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

Ex Parte Youman et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"

Holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not apply to the term “detent mechanism,” because “the noun ‘detent’ denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are expressed in functional terms.”

Holding that "it is appropriate for us to look to dictionary definitions of the terms" where "the specification does not define the term" and "the most that can be said is that the specification is not inconsistent" with the proposed constructions by the parties

Holding that “height adjustment mechanism” imparts sufficient structure so that the presumption against applying § 112, ¶ 6 is not overcome

Explaining that section 251's “error” requirement covers “inadvertence or mistake,” not “deliberate” choices made by the patentee

Applying step three's “materially narrowing” analysis “relative to the original claims” where “original claims” are defined as “the claims before surrender”

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

Describing the reissue of defective patents

Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing