§
Robert Farnan

11 Cited authorities

  1. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  2. Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

    884 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 12 times

    2017-1389 03-14-2018 HOLOGIC, INC., Appellant v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Covidien LP, Appellees Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Marc A. Cohn; Jennifer Sklenar, Los Angeles, CA. Michael A. Albert, Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellees. Appellee Smith & Nephew, Inc. also represented by Richard Giunta. Naveen Modi, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee Covidien LP. Stoll, Circuit Judge. Matthew

  3. Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co.

    837 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2015–1662 2015–1663 09-20-2016 Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Plaintiff–Appellant v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, Defendant–Appellee Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Defendant–Appellant Matthew Nielsen, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant/defendant-appellant. Also represented by Kevin M. Flowers, Amanda Antons; Roger L. Browdy, Ronni Jillions, Browdy and Neimark PLLC, Washington, DC. James Richard Ferguson

  4. Application of Smythe

    480 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing circumstances in which a species may be representative of and therefore descriptive of genus claims

  5. Application of Lukach

    442 F.2d 967 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 44 times
    Recognizing that there are "anomalies between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures" and citing Hafner as an example

  6. Application of Reynolds

    443 F.2d 384 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8526. June 10, 1971. Cornelius J. O'Connor, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant; Homer R. Montague, Washington, D.C., John J. Pederson, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board

  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 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"

  9. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  10. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  11. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and