§

HEUSCHEN et al. V. OKAMOTO

07228710 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 1998)
HEUSCHEN et al. V. OKAMOTO

22 Cited authorities

  1. Chemcast Corp. v. Arco Industries Corp.

    913 F.2d 923 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that adequacy of disclosure depends on whether "the disclosure [is] adequate to enable one skilled in the art to practice the best mode"

  2. Engel Industries, Inc., v. Lockformer Co.

    946 F.2d 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 82 times
    Reversing inequitable conduct holding as unsupportable as a matter of law because reference was cumulative

  3. Wang Lab. v. Applied Computer Sciences

    958 F.2d 355 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 68 times
    Applying First Circuit law

  4. Wahl Instruments, Inc. v. Acvious, Inc.

    950 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 33 times
    Holding no best mode violation for failure to disclose a method chosen for reasons of cost and volume

  5. Holmwood v. Sugavanam

    948 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding prior reduction to practice in the United States based on domestic testing of a foreign fungicide, proof of which was established through oral testimony and test results

  6. Randomex, Inc. v. Scopus Corp.

    849 F.2d 585 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no violation of best mode requirement by concealment of a preferred cleaning fluid formula when the claimed invention "neither added nor claimed to add anything to the prior art respecting cleaning fluid"

  7. Kubota v. Shibuya

    999 F.2d 517 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Commissioner's interpretation that a declaration of interference is an interlocutory order presumed to be correct under 37 C.F.R. § 1.655

  8. Bosies v. Benedict

    27 F.3d 539 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Bosies, the documentary evidence of conception consisted of the inventor's laboratory notebook, disclosing a generic formula with the length of a hydrocarbon chain designated as "n."

  9. DSL Dynamic Sciences Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc.

    928 F.2d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 17 times

    No. 90-1395. March 19, 1991. Bruce E. O'Connor, Christensen, O'Connor, Johnson Kindness, Seattle, Wash., argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Michael W. Bocianowski. William B. Mallin, Eckert Seamans Cherin Mellott, Pittsburgh, Pa., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Arnold B. Silverman and David V. Radack. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Before RICH, PLAGER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit

  10. Abrutyn v. Giovanniello

    15 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that an abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly unreasonable or is based on erroneous conclusions of law

  11. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 269 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  12. Section 1.601 - Filing of papers in supplemental examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.601   Cited 40 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Defining the term "interference"