MacNeil IP LLC
7 Cited authorities
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar
935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 397 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements
In re Mraz
455 F.2d 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 18 timesExplaining that features that patent drawings "show clearly" can be sufficient to establish anticipation, especially when they are the focus of the figure and shown "with great particularity," but distinguishing a case where the patent drawing at issue was "obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything"
Application of Aslanian
590 F.2d 911 (C.C.P.A. 1979) Cited 6 timesExplaining that in determining obviousness, all references are assessed "on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art" (quoting In re Baum , 374 F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967) )
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,172 times 492 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 311 - Inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 311 Cited 410 times 205 Legal AnalysesEstablishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding
Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 314 Cited 380 times 635 Legal AnalysesDirecting our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
Section 42.4 - Notice of trial
37 C.F.R. § 42.4 Cited 54 times 6 Legal AnalysesStating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"