§

Olmarker et al. V. Olmarker et al. V. Olmarker et al. V. Olmarker et al. V. Tobinick V. Olmarker et al.

11521093 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)
Olmarker et al. V. Olmarker et al. V. Olmarker et al. V. Olmarker et al. V. Tobinick V. Olmarker et al.

16 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. v. Dunkel

    927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 2,332 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the record

  2. Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

    514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 456 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

  3. Agilent Tech. v. Affymetrix

    567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's holding that an applicant's written description was adequate because the court erred in its claim construction

  4. Koninklijke Philips v. Car. Sci

    590 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court ruling, which upheld the Board's decision on the patentability issue because it failed to apply the correct standard

  5. Cultor v. A.E. Staley Manu. Co.

    224 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the claim term "water-soluble polydextrose" was expressly defined in the specification

  6. In re Berger

    279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to consider the merits of indefiniteness rejections not contested before the Board

  7. 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"

  8. In re Spina

    975 F.2d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1358. September 15, 1992. David V. Trask, Trask, Britt Rossa, of Salt Lake City, Utah, submitted for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Va., submitted for appellee. With him on the brief were John W. Dewhirst and Jameson Lee, Associate Solicitors. Of counsel was Richard E. Schafer. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge

  9. Aelony v. Urs Arni

    547 F.2d 566 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 8 times
    In Aelony, supra at 569-70, 192 USPQ at 489-90, this court held that a particular threshold issue of "interference-in-fact" was ancillary to priority.

  10. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 101,668 times   699 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  11. Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 7,569 times   309 Legal Analyses
    Making false statements

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  15. Section 41.201 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.201   Cited 15 times   15 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in §§ 41.2 and 41.100 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Accord benefit means Board recognition that a patent application provides a proper constructive reduction to practice under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) . Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) , in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive

  16. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order