Results for inherency

Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire LLC

Case Number: CLB0425

Date: 09.08.2017

Inherency may be used to supply a missing claim limitation when the missing claim limitation is necessarily disclosed by a reference; however, the PTO may require an applicant to prove that subject matter shown to be in a reference does not possess a characteristic relied upon with respect to functional limitations.

view Case Detail Download PDF

King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0261

Date: 08.02.2010

Prior art indicating instructions and use that would inherently obtain claimed benefits (pharmacological effect) invalidate claims despite recitation of the benefits (and instructions and information for use to obtain improved pharmacological benefits, absent some new function or result, do not make the claims patentable).

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