In re SurgiSil, LLP
A design claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim.
Results for Anticipation
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation
Claim construction and anticipation in view of loosely defined prior art elements.
In re Steve Morsa
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.
In re Imes
A broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must be consistent with the pain meaning of the term or with the specification.
Therasense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.
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.
Orion IP, LLC, v. Hyundai Motor America
The Federal Circuit permits testimony regarding capabilities and use of a prior art system in its determination of whether a publication about the system qualifies as prior art.
In re Skvorecz
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.
Net MoneyIN Inc. v. VeriSign Inc.
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.
Ex parte Whalen
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.
Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.
The Federal Circuit holds that rewriting a dependent claim into independent form, coupled with the cancelation of its original independent claim, gives rise to prosecution history estoppel.