Results for 35 U.S.C. § 112
Rivera v. International Trade Commission, Solofill, LLC
Claims that lack support from the written description are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v Capital One Financial Corporation
The Fed. Circuit affirms the District Court’s application of 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph, despite an absence of ‘means’, and determines the claims to be indefinite due to a lack of sufficient structure in the disclosure.
Promega Corp. v. Life Tech. Corp.
The Fed. Circuit invalidates claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph, finding that the specification does not enable a skilled artisan to practice the full breadth of ‘comprising’ claim scope.
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
A patent claim is indefinite if, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fails to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonably certainty.
Ex parte Gutta
The B.P.A.I. finds that claims directed to a system (reciting a memory and a processor configured to perform certain steps) and an article of manufacture (reciting a computer readable medium having computer readable program code embodied thereon) are not directed to patentable subject matter because the claims are not limited to a tangible practical application and are not limited so as to avoid encompassing substantially all practical applications of an algorithm.
Ex parte Catlin
The Board found that structure in a means-plus-function claim was not satisfied by disclosure of a general purpose computer.
LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc.
Patentee cannot always satisfy written description requirement, in supporting expansive claim language, merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the claimed invention; specification of patent for method of digital compression using discreet wavelet transforms, which discloses single method of creating “seamless” DWT, does not entitle inventor to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.
Gentry Gallery Inc. v. Berkline Corp.
In view of the specification and testimony that the inventor had not, at the time the patent application was filed, considered a particular structural arrangement encompassed by claims broadened during prosecution, the Federal Circuit invalidates these claims based on the written description requirement.
Liebel-Flarsheim Company and Mallinckrodt, Inc., v. Medrad, Inc.
The Court considers the extent to which patent claims should be interpreted to cover embodiments that are not enabled by the specification.