§
Yamada et al.

12 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. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  3. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 153 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  4. Eaton v. Evans

    204 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    In Eaton, this court stated that "this Court's well-established precedent requires that the constructed embodiment or performed process include the precise elements in the count."

  5. Griffith v. Kanamaru

    816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 87-1042. April 8, 1987. Eric S. Spector of Jones, Tullar Cooper, P.C., Arlington, Va., argued for appellant. Harold C. Wegner of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C., argued for appellees. With him on brief was Helmuth A. Wegner, of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C.; Barry E. Bretschneider and Herbert I. Cantor, of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before BISSELL, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit

  6. Bey v. Kollonitsch

    806 F.2d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    Requiring “reasonable diligence during the continuous ... critical period”

  7. Breen v. Henshaw

    472 F.2d 1398 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 11 times
    Holding no reduction to practice during lab experiments because there was no "indication in the contemporaneous record" that utility "was recognized at that time"

  8. D'Amico v. Koike

    347 F.2d 867 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7305. July 1, 1965. Chester A. Williams, Jr., Edward L. Bell, New York City, for appellant. Joseph C. Sullivan, Daniel H. Kane, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences in Interference No. 91,541 awarding priority to the junior party, Koike, in an interference between application serial No. 588,070, filed by Koike on May 29, 1956, and application

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1066 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

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,030 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,402 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  12. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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