Results for Anticipation

In re Steve Morsa

Case Number: CLB0363

Date: 10.19.2015

A patent application specification may be used as evidence of the knowledge or skill that one of ordinary skill in the art possesses to enable prior art.

view Case Detail Download PDF

In re Imes

Case Number: CLB0344

Date: 01.29.2015

A broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must be consistent with the pain meaning of the term or with the specification.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Therasense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.

Case Number: CLB0277

Date: 01.25.2010

For a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.

view Case Detail Download PDF

In re Skvorecz

Case Number: CLB0232

Date: 09.03.2009

The Federal Circuit finds that the B.P.A.I. incorrectly construed the claim term “comprising”, further noting that the protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination is solely an examination expedient and does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Net MoneyIN Inc. v. VeriSign Inc.

Case Number: CLB0241

Date: 10.20.2008

If a reference discloses all the limitations of a claim but such limitations are not arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, the reference cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Ex parte Whalen

Case Number: CLB0209

Inherency-type Section 102 rejections may require evidence when applied and routine experimentation and expectation of success Section 103 rejections may require supporting evidence under the TSM test when the references teach away from the claims.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Prima Tek II L.L.C. v. Polypap S.A.R.L.

Case Number: CLB0123

Date: 06.22.2005

The court reversed the district court’s invalidity determination for two Prima Tek patents relating to floral arrangements. The asserted claims were anticipated by a reference that met the “without pot means” limitation, the “floral holding material” limitation, and the “crimping and overlapping fold” limitation. The district court interpreted the first two limitations too narrowly, and for the third, the reference inherently supplied the limitation.

view Case Detail Download PDF