530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,420 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
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]”
Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”
Holding that where appellate court reversed a judgment of acquittal but did not rule on a motion for new trial, the rule of mandate did not require the district court to deny the new trial motion
Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry
Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,339 times 1040 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