§

Shafer et al. V. Omura

12816863 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2012)
Shafer et al. V. Omura

18 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. U.S. v. Dunkel

    927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 2,346 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the record

  3. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  4. Applied Materials v. Advanced Semiconductor

    98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disputed claim limitation, read in light of the written description, requires a function not performed by the accused device

  5. Agilent Tech. v. Affymetrix

    567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 51 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

  6. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.

    127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 59 times
    Concluding that courts should evaluate the question of objective baselessness "in light of ... information [available] at the time of filing"

  7. Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan, Corp.

    49 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding was not essential to a judgment for collateral estoppel purposes where judgment was supportable on other grounds

  8. Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Pharmachemie B.V

    361 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a divisional was not filed "as a result of" a restriction requirement where the original restriction requirement in the parent application was later superseded by a new restriction requirement in a continuation application

  9. Woods v. Tsuchiya

    754 F.2d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that award of sanctions falls within the Board of Interference's discretion

  10. Application of Hengehold

    440 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8345. April 29, 1971. Roy F. Schaeperklaus, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, attorney of record for appellant. William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael, Bradford Gardiner, Washington, D.C., James W. Pearce, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,421 times   1069 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

  12. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  13. Section 27 - Revival of applications; reinstatement of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 27   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for patent, accept an unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing each patent, or accept an unintentionally delayed response by the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, upon petition by the applicant for patent or patent owner. 35 U.S.C. § 27 Added Pub. L. 112-211, title II, §201(b)(1), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat.

  14. Section 10 - Publications

    35 U.S.C. § 10   Cited 1 times

    (a) The Director may publish in printed, typewritten, or electronic form, the following: 1. Patents and published applications for patents, including specifications and drawings, together with copies of the same. The Patent and Trademark Office may print the headings of the drawings for patents for the purpose of photolithography. 2. Certificates of trade-mark registrations, including statements and drawings, together with copies of the same. 3. The Official Gazette of the United States Patent and

  15. Section 112 - Detail of employees of executive departments

    3 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 1 times

    The head of any department, agency, or independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government may detail, from time to time, employees of such department, agency, or establishment to the White House Office, the Executive Residence at the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Domestic Policy Staff, and the Office of Administration. Any such office to which an employee has been detailed for service to such office shall reimburse the detailing department, agency, or establishment

  16. 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

  17. Section 41.158 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 41.158   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. Testimony on United States patent law will not be admitted. (b) If a party relies on a technical test or data from such a test, the party must provide an affidavit explaining: (1) Why the test or data is being used, (2) How the test was performed and the data was generated, (3) How the data is used to determine a value, (4) How the test is regarded in the relevant