12 Cited authorities

  1. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 310 times   5 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 218 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 140 times   4 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 57 times   9 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. 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.
  6. In re Wright

    866 F.2d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that fact that exact words in question are not in specification is "not important"
  7. Application of Johnson

    558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Excluding two compounds from the claim to avoid reading on a lost interference count, without explaining as much in the patent
  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 6,703 times   831 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 5,573 times   819 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 3,673 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents
  11. Section 304 - Reexamination order by Director

    35 U.S.C. § 304   Cited 47 times   4 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 inreexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.535   Cited 5 times

    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