§

Glatz et al. V. Hochgraeber

14454577 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)
Glatz et al. V. Hochgraeber

20 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,829 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 631 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  3. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 605 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  4. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 303 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  5. Default Proof Credit Card v. Home Depot

    412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the point-of-sale assembly was not the corresponding structure for the dispensing means where the two were recited in different parts of the same claim

  6. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 285 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.”

  7. Biomedino v. Waters

    490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 199 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure"

  8. O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co. Inc.

    115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 203 times
    Holding that the step of "passing the analyte slug through a passage" was not subject to section 112, ¶ 6 because the term "passage" referred to the place where the recited function occurs rather than the structure that accomplishes the function

  9. Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.

    891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 94 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "program" and "user interface code" are not nonce words because they are "used not as generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions, but rather as specific references to conventional graphical user interface programs or code"

  10. Carnegie Mellon v. Hoffmann-La

    541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 92 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the narrow description of the E. coli polA gene did not adequately support a broad claim to the gene from any bacterial source

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,363 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

  12. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  13. Section 112 - Persons present at delivery of goods and money

    25 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 18 times

    The superintendent, agent, or subagent, together with such military officer as the President may direct, shall be present, and certify to the delivery of all goods and money required to be paid or delivered to the Indians. 25 U.S.C. § 112 R.S. §2088. EDITORIAL NOTES CODIFICATIONR.S. §2088 derived from act June 30, 1834, ch. 162, §13, 4 Stat. 737. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES INDIAN AGENTSThe services of Indian agents have been dispensed with. See note set out under section 64 of this

  14. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order

  15. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1