§

HOSHINO et al V. TANAKA

07245967 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 1998)
HOSHINO et al V. TANAKA

19 Cited authorities

  1. Cable Elec. Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.

    770 F.2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 135 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding on summary judgment that even though commercial success could be deduced, it deserved no weight because a nexus was not established

  2. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  3. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  4. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.

    127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 58 times
    Concluding that courts should evaluate the question of objective baselessness "in light of ... information [available] at the time of filing"

  5. In re De Blauwe

    736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-513. June 8, 1984. Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Pasadena, Cal., argued for appellants. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge. JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from that part of the decision of the

  6. 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

  7. Case v. CPC International, Inc.

    730 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that section 146 "authorizes the district court to accept all proffered testimony on issues raised by the parties during the proceedings below or by the board's decision."

  8. 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

  9. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  10. Application of Skoll

    523 F.2d 1392 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-547. October 23, 1975. Glenn O. Starke, Milwaukee, Wis., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 10-15

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."

  12. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,929 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

  13. 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"

  14. Section 1.172 - Reissue applicant

    37 C.F.R. § 1.172   Cited 7 times

    (a) The reissue applicant is the original patentee, or the current patent owner if there has been an assignment. A reissue application must be accompanied by the written consent of all assignees, if any, currently owning an undivided interest in the patent. All assignees consenting to the reissue must establish their ownership in the patent by filing in the reissue application a submission in accordance with the provisions of § 3.73(c) of this chapter. (b) A reissue will be granted to the original