§Why CasetextPricing

Tse v. Google Inc., et al.

RESPONSE

12 Cited authorities

  1. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 336 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim invalid as anticipated when it claimed compounds in Markush form and a prior art reference disclosed one of the claimed compounds

  2. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International

    316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 236 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the term "vivid color appearance" not indefinite when the specification presented a formula for calculating the differential effect for a number of examples, which determined whether or not they had a "vivid colored appearance"

  3. Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm

    492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 152 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the invention not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have selected for further investigation

  4. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 68 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[d]ue to breaks in the chain of priority," the "[parent] patent [was] prior art for some of the asserted claims"

  5. In re Wright

    866 F.2d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 30 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that fact that exact words in question are not in specification is "not important"

  6. Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Intern., Inc.

    835 F.2d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Kennecott, where the term "equiaxed microstructure" was expressly used to describe an invention for the first time in a CIP, the CIP was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent patent because the description was inherent in the structure produced in the original parent patent.

  7. Application of Johnson

    558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing rejection for inadequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but excluded two species of lost interference count

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,275 times   1022 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

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,937 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,895 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  11. Section 304 - Reexamination order by Director

    35 U.S.C. § 304   Cited 53 times   6 Legal Analyses

    If, in a determination made under the provisions of subsection 303(a), the Director finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of a patent is raised, the determination will include an order for reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. The patent owner will be given a reasonable period, not less than two months from the date a copy of the determination is given or mailed to him, within which he may file a statement on such question, including any

  12. Section 1.535 - Reply by third party requester in ex parte reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.535   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A reply to the patent owner's statement under § 1.530 may be filed by the ex parte reexamination requester within two months from the date of service of the patent owner's statement. Any reply by the ex parte requester must be served upon the patent owner in accordance with § 1.248 . If the patent owner does not file a statement under § 1.530 , no reply or other submission from the ex parte reexamination requester will be considered. 37 C.F.R. §1.535 65 FR 76776, Dec. 7, 2000 Part 2 is placed in