§

Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

09376992 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2015)
Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 661 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

  2. Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.

    441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 339 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patent claim construction that reads limitations out of a claim is "contrary to the principle that claim language should not [be] treated as meaningless"

  3. Bell Communications v. Vitalink Communications

    55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 417 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that part-time infringement is nonetheless infringement

  4. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.

    758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 148 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a process of gathering and combining data was patent ineligible because it did not require "input from a physical device"

  5. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  6. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas

    362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 11 times   9 Legal Analyses

    No. 03-1339. DECIDED: March 24, 2004. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 246 F.Supp.2d 460, Leonie M. Brinkema, J. Christopher N. Sipes, Covington Burling, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Raymond T. Chen, Associate

  7. Application of Echerd

    471 F.2d 632 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8776. January 26, 1973. Charles B. Park, III, Charlotte, N.C., attorney of record, for appellants; Floyd A. Gibson, Charlotte, N.C., Joseph C. Walter, Washington, D.C., Parrott, Bell, Seltzer, Park Gibson, Charlotte, N.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is

  8. Section 42.104 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.104   Cited 28 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Describing the content of the petition, including both "the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground," and "supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge"

  9. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A