§

Mower V. Ben-Haim et al.

09254900 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2012)
Mower V. Ben-Haim et al.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,190 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd.

    78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 326 times
    Holding that a "technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention, unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning"

  3. Bilstad v. Wakalopulos

    386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 61 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of "plurality" of the Board of Patent Appeals

  4. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  5. Berman v. Housey

    291 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 14 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the proposition that " all issues relating to patentability that are fairly raised in an interference must be addressed by the Board"

  6. Meitzner v. Mindick

    549 F.2d 775 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 76-577. February 24, 1977. Rehearing Denied April 28, 1977. Eugene Sabol, Fisher, Christen Sabol, Washington, D.C., attys. of record, for appellants; George W.F. Simmons, Robert A. Doherty, Rohm Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. Herbert B. Keil, Michael P. Bucklo, Johnston, Keil, Thompson Shurtleff, Chicago, Ill., David B. Kellom, Bernd W. Sandt, Midland, Mich., attys. of record, for appellees. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1068 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

  8. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"