§

Wang V. Tucholski

07308210 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 1999)
Wang V. Tucholski

36 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. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  3. Schriber Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.

    305 U.S. 47 (1938)   Cited 106 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 305 U.S. 47, 59 S.Ct. 8, 83 L.Ed. 34 (1938), the Court held that the second application describing the flexible nature of webbing connecting the head and skirt of an automobile piston could not relate back to the first application in which the webbing was described as rigid.

  4. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  5. Ex Parte Porter

    827 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the State need only allege in an indictment that defendant forged a writing with intent to defraud or harm another and that additional language, including language from section 32.21 of the penal code, in the forgery allegation contained in the indictment is surplusage

  6. In re Amos

    953 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 28 times
    Noting that error includes attorney's mistake in understanding claim scope, "one of the most common sources of defects"

  7. Gen. Instrument Corp. v. Scientific-Atlanta

    995 F.2d 209 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 24 times
    Discussing Board decisions in interference proceedings in the context of both priority of invention and patentability

  8. Kubota v. Shibuya

    999 F.2d 517 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Commissioner's interpretation that a declaration of interference is an interlocutory order presumed to be correct under 37 C.F.R. § 1.655

  9. 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

  10. Bosies v. Benedict

    27 F.3d 539 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Bosies, the documentary evidence of conception consisted of the inventor's laboratory notebook, disclosing a generic formula with the length of a hydrocarbon chain designated as "n."

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,886 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,423 times   1070 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  14. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  15. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 467 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  16. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  17. Section 1.321 - Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers

    37 C.F.R. § 1.321   Cited 75 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Incorporating the language of § 253

  18. Section 1.601 - Filing of papers in supplemental examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.601   Cited 40 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Defining the term "interference"

  19. Section 1.610 - Content of request for supplemental examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.610   Cited 4 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) A request for supplemental examination must be accompanied by the fee for filing a request for supplemental examination as set forth in § 1.20(k)(1) , the fee for reexamination ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding as set forth in § 1.20(k)(2) , and any applicable document size fees as set forth in § 1.20(k)(3) . (b) A request for supplemental examination must include: (1) An identification of the number of the patent for which supplemental examination is requested. (2)

  20. Section 1.66 - Statements under oath

    37 C.F.R. § 1.66   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    An oath or affirmation may be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths. An oath made in a foreign country may be made before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any officer having an official seal and authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country in which the applicant may be, whose authority shall be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or