case holdings by grounds for rejection ACTUAL


1	dance	hindsight a no no	103	2012-01-02	REVERSED
2	Ahlert and Knapp-Monarch	judicial notice	103	2012-01-04	AFFIRMED
3	Catalina	structure not purpose	103	2012-01-04	AFFIRMED
4	finisar and netmoneyin	anticipation requires arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim	102	2012-01-05	REVERSED
5	ball aerosol	motivation to combine	103	2012-01-06	REVERSED
6	pioneer	if your attorney screws up, it's your fault...	103	2012-01-09	AFFIRMED
7	permahedge	claims not embodiments define scope	103	2012-01-10	AFFIRMED
8	belkin	SNQ (substantial new question in a reexam)	SNQ	2012-01-10	AFFIRMED
9	dance perfectweb vaidyanahan ksr	obviousness gotta say why and gotta come from prior art	103	2012-01-11	REVERSED
10	unigene	obviousness requires more that bunch of separate references covering each limitation in claim...	103	2012-01-12	REVERSED
11	american academy, stumbo and bicon	to overcome 103 (too broad because render claim term superflous and not use all terms within claim...)	claim interpretation	2012-01-13	REVERSED
12	stumbo	denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous	claim interpretation	2012-01-13	REVERSED
13	bicon	Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim	claim interpretation	2012-01-13	REVERSED
14	kropa	preamble reads on claim	claim interpretation	2012-01-18	REVERSED
15	johnston, altiris	"if" clause optional but not optional when "if" alternative requires another step	claim interpretation	2012-01-19	REVERSED
16	modine	interesting ITC case by newman about "about"	112(2)	2012-01-20	REVERSED
17	renishaw	if several meanings disclosure points to proper meanings of claim terms	102	2012-01-30	REVERSED
18	K-2	removeably secured means screws	103	2012-01-30	REVERSED
19	mostafazedah, myers	recapture rule can't eliminate limitation entirely unless "wholly unrelated" to subject matter surrendered...	251	2012-01-31	AFFIRMED
20	heyna, mcclain, passal, lohr	unexpected results	103	2012-02-02	AFFIRMED
21	muchmore	claim can't include both obvious and non-obvious subject matter...	103	2012-02-02	AFFIRMED
22	hall	printed publication	prior art	2012-02-02	REVERSED
23	elan, beckman, symbol tech	prior art general level of operability	prior art	2012-02-03	AFFIRMED
24	pharmastem	admissions in spec affect obviousness	103	2012-02-04	AFFIRMED
25	lukach	new amendments must be supported in spec or it is a WRITTEN DESCRIPTION violation under 112(1)	112(1)	2012-02-07	AFFIRMED
26	wilson	no reasonable meaning to claim term then it is INDEFINITE under 112(2)	112(2)	2012-02-07	AFFIRMED
27	cybersource, dealertrack	computer implemented method must be more than just computer aided	101	2012-02-08	AFFIRMED
28	ultramercial, research corp	for 101 just a threshold check	101	2012-02-08	REVERSED
29	farrenkopf	cost no problem for POSITA	103	2012-02-08	AFFIRMED
30	angstadt, vaeck, ariad	all for enablement	112(1)	2012-02-09	AFFIRMED
31	levy	inherency	claim interpretation	2012-02-09	REVERSED
32	fessman	burden of proof in product by process is less	103	2012-02-14	AFFIRMED
33	kerhkoven, yates	catalysts treated differently in 103 combinations	103	2012-02-14	REVERSED
34	rohm and haas v. brotech	don't have to believe one expert over another	103	2012-02-15	AFFIRMED
35	brummer and orthokinetics	determining the definiteness of a claim depends on the facts involved; 112(2) indefiniteness	112(2)	2012-02-16	REVERSED
36	aroyama, golite, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, default proof, biomedino, donaldson	112(6) means plus function 112(2) indefiniteness	112(2)/112(6)	2012-02-17	AFFIRMED
37	prater	"a human being cannot constitute a means"	112(6)	2012-02-17	AFFIRMED
38	telecordia, intel v. via	[C]laim definiteness depends on the skill level of an ordinary artisan; 112(2) indefiniteness	112(2)	2012-02-20	REVERSED
39	ortho-mcneil, pall corp., eiselstein	meaning of "about" depends on facts of the case	claim interpretation	2012-02-20	AFFIRMED
40	netmoneyin, arkley	102 anticipation rejection can't pick and choose	102	2012-02-22	REVERSED
41	arkley	picking and choosing ok in a 103 rejection	103	2012-02-22	AFFIRMED
42	wertheim, kropa	preamble breathes life into claim so preamble can be a limitation	claim interpretation	2012-02-22	REVERSED
43	advanced display, seversky	incorporation by reference	prior art	2012-02-22	REVERSED
44	Thorner	can't read limitations from spec into claims, can't redefine words, disclaimer must be clear and unmistakable.	claim interpretation	2012-02-23	AFFIRMED
45	falko-gunter	112(1) written description in biotech	112(1)	2012-02-24	REVERSED
46	Dealertrack	101	101	2012-02-29	AFFIRMED
47	Detroit Iron Works	obviousness	103	2012-02-29	AFFIRMED
48	gentry	112(1) written description violated when original description limits location but claims don't	112(1)	2012-03-08	AFFIRMED
49	cohn, hammack	whether single claim indefinite irrelevant when all claims considered indefinite	112(2)	2012-03-08	AFFIRMED
50	becton	claim elements listed separately mean distinct components	claim interpretation	2012-03-12	AFFIRMED
51	CAE	disfavored to have single element satisfy two distinct limitations in claim...	claim interpretation	2012-03-12	AFFIRMED
52	bush	J. rich decision, order of references in rejection doesn't matter	prior art	2012-03-12	AFFIRMED
53	fisher, harwood	utility must be specific and substantial	101	2012-03-13	REVERSED
54	spada	same chemical composition can't have mutually exclusive properties	claim interpretation	2012-03-13	AFFIRMED
55	ariad, turbocare, purdue	112(1) written description req different from enablement req.	112(1)	2012-03-14	AFFIRMED
56	rishoi, young	no patentable combination between device and material it works on	claim interpretation	2012-03-14	AFFIRMED
57	bush	J. Rich case again order of refs doesn't matter	prior art	2012-03-14	AFFIRMED
58	hockerson and wright	drawings don't have quantitative values	prior art	2012-03-15	REVERSED
59	searle	112(1) written description serves a teaching function, it is "quid pro quo"	112(1)	2012-03-16	AFFIRMED
60	marley mouldings, moore	112(2) indefiniteness inquiry is do claims circumscribe with reasonable precision	112(2)	2012-03-16	REVERSED
61	omega engineering	negative limitations need support in spec	112(1)	2012-03-20	AFFIRMED
62	engel industries	separate claim elements are construed as separate structures	claim interpretation	2012-03-20	REVERSED
63	casey	intended use doesn't matter	claim interpretation	2012-03-21	AFFIRMED
64	velander	obviousness	103	2012-03-22	AFFIRMED
65	sunrace, ullstrand, and chiron	connected	claim interpretation	2012-03-22	AFFIRMED
66	IMS	claim infringed by apparatus encompassing limitations in body not preamble	claim interpretation	2012-03-23	AFFIRMED
67	Three-Dimensional, Bing Shun, Badasa	Wikipedia unreliable	claim interpretation	2012-03-26	AFFIRMED
68	datamize, solomon, miyazaki	why 112(2) different pre/post patent	112(2)	2012-03-27	AFFIRMED
69	buchner	omit what is well known in the art	claim interpretation	2012-03-28	AFFIRMED
70	kao	prima facie case for obviousness	103	2012-03-30	AFFIRMED
71	seattle box	substantially	112(2)	2012-03-30	AFFIRMED
72	3M, Hazani and Garnero	product by process	claim interpretation	2012-03-30	REVERSED
73	gaus, unique concepts, netmoneyin	two elements cannot be one and the same	103	2012-04-02	AFFIRMED
74	nievelt	combination doesn't include how to combine	103	2012-04-02	AFFIRMED
75	lukach, scheiber, stempel	priority benefit under § 120 must satisfy 112	112(1)	2012-04-05	AFFIRMED
76	thorner	court can't redefine words	claim interpretation	2012-04-09	AFFIRMED
77	ellis	classification system not important for non-analogous prior art inquiry.	prior art	2012-04-09	AFFIRMED
78	swinehart	2173.05(g) functional limitations OK	112(2)	2012-04-11	REVERSED
79	datamize	relative terminology	112(2)	2012-04-12	AFFIRMED
80	baldwin, KCJ, abtox, insituform	a, an means "one or more"	claim interpretation	2012-04-12	AFFIRMED
81	sandisk	includes means comprises, doesn't foreclose additional elements...	claim interpretation	2012-04-13	AFFIRMED
82	monarch knitting	long felt but unsolved need not just need in isolation	103	2012-04-18	AFFIRMED
83	purdue pharma	112(1) written description requirement	112(1)	2012-04-18	AFFIRMED
84	stepan	remanded from Fed. Cir.	102	2012-04-19	AFFIRMED
85	dann	must be nonobvious to POSITA	103	2012-04-19	AFFIRMED
86	klein	analogous prior art from same field regardless of problem solved	prior art	2012-04-19	AFFIRMED
87	standard havens	anticipation word for word not necessary	102	2012-04-20	AFFIRMED
88	cescon	chemical secondary considerations	103	2012-04-25	REVERSED
89	ergo and noah	means plus function 112(6)	112(2)	2012-04-25	AFFIRMED
90	chevenard, boon	old cases for taking judicial notice, common knowledge	103	2012-04-26	AFFIRMED
91	mayo	recent S.Ct. 101 case	101	2012-04-27	AFFIRMED
92	dulberg	making something separable is obvious	103	2012-04-27	AFFIRMED
93	sporman	J. Rich case, obvious cannot be predicated on what is unknown	103	2012-04-27	REVERSED
94	unigene	obviousness requres more than showing references cover limitations	103	2012-04-27	REVERSED
95	suitco surface	broadest constuction doesn't give unfettered license to embrace anything	claim interpretation	2012-04-30	AFFIRMED
96	warner	patent office must provide factual basis in 103	103	2012-05-07	REVERSED
97	gyurik	in determining non-statutory subject matter will not consider allowed claims in other patents	prior art	2012-05-07	AFFIRMED
98	O'Farrell	(J. Rich 1988) for obvious to try needs reasonable expectation of success	103	2012-05-08	REVERSED
99	mayo	[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas' are not patentable	101	2012-05-09	AFFIRMED
100	fritch	not in mpep can't use claimed invention as instruction manual to piece together teachings of prior art	103	2012-05-09	REVERSED
101	kleinman	(J. Almond 1973) prior art doesn't need constructive or actual knowledge of earlier prior art in order to combine	prior art	2012-05-10	AFFIRMED
102	mayo, fort properties	101	101	2012-05-11	AFFIRMED
103	lamberti	reference is available for all it discloses to POSITA	103	2012-05-11	AFFIRMED
104	tanczyn	(J. Almond 1965) affadavits can't prove priority of only a part of invention	112(1)	2012-05-11	AFFIRMED
105	CyberSource, Research Corp	101 can't be performed entirely in a human’s mind	101	2012-05-14	REVERSED
106	para-ordnance	(not in mpep) what prior art teaches is question of fact (not law)	prior art	2012-05-15	AFFIRMED
107	beattie	teaching away needs more than just differences	103	2012-05-16	AFFIRMED
108	dulberg	seperation of elements obvious only if for a reason	103	2012-05-17	REVERSED
109	standard havens	anticipatory reference need not be word for word	102	2012-05-18	AFFIRMED
110	sullivan	failure to address evidence is error	103	2012-05-21	REVERSED
111	animal legal defense fund	negative limitations OK	112(2)	2012-05-22	REVERSED
112	Ergo Licensing, Noah Systems	112(6) must comply with 112(2)	112(2)/112(6)	2012-05-23	AFFIRMED
113	Giacomini	provisional OK to use as prior art under 102(e)	prior art	2012-05-23	AFFIRMED
114	lindemann	for anticipation arranged as in the claim means not mere catalogues of separate parts	102	2012-05-24	REVERSED
115	net moneyin	for anticipation not enough that artisan might combine distinct teachings or parts to come up with invention	102	2012-05-24	REVERSED
116	edge	old chief judge markey case that removal of part but keeping its function is obvious is not per se rule	103	2012-05-24	REVERSED
117	Princeton, Dystar	nature of problem to be solved can provide motivation to combine	103	2012-05-25	AFFIRMED
118	AFG	"consisting of" is closed	claim interpretation	2012-05-25	REVERSED
119	Chef America	ordinary simple English is clear and unquestionable	claim interpretation	2012-05-25	AFFIRMED
120	Xiao	non-functional descriptive material no patentable weight	claim interpretation	2012-05-25	AFFIRMED
121	farrenkopf	businessman is same as person of ordinary skill	103	2012-05-30	AFFIRMED
122	staats	reissue	251	2012-05-30	REVERSED
123	lighting world	nonce word in a means plus function claim	112(2)	2012-05-30	AFFIRMED
124	shealy	101 computer readable medium non-statutory because could even be paper	101	2012-06-01	AFFIRMED
125	mehl	inherency	103	2012-06-04	REVERSED
126	johnson	breadth not indefinite	112(2)	2012-06-04	REVERSED
127	mintz	new J. Rader case obviousness analysis requires amnesia	103	2012-06-06	REVERSED
128	mintz	C.J. Radar for obviousness "common sense" no good without support	103	2012-06-07	REVERSED
129	eaton2	preamble necessary when limitations rely on it for antecedent basis	claim interpretation	2012-06-07	REVERSED
130	ultramercial, gottschalk, parker and diamond1	application of abstract idea is patentable	101	2012-06-08	REVERSED
131	Abrams	self-evident thought is not patentable	101	2012-06-11	AFFIRMED
132	In re Skvorecz	BRI does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation solely an examination expedient, not a rule of claim construction.	103	2012-06-11	REVERSED
133	Skvorecz	Newman case for BRI is an expdient not a rule	claim interpretation	2012-06-11	REVERSED
134	jones, lemin, merck	choosing species out of genus not necessarily obvious	103	2012-06-13	REVERSED
135	wyers, kao	secondary considerations need nexus to ovecome prima facie case of obviousness	103	2012-06-13	AFFIRMED
136	thorner, aventis	only own lexicographer and disavowel for claim term having other than common meaning	claim interpretation	2012-06-13	AFFIRMED
137	cybersource and dealertrack	simply adding computer limitations to mental processes not enough	101	2012-06-14	AFFIRMED
138	cordis	claim construction a matter of law reviewed de novo	claim interpretation	2012-06-14	AFFIRMED
139	hoffer and minton	intended use in whereby claim	claim interpretation	2012-06-14	AFFIRMED
140	crown, hynix v. rambus	written description supported for one genus/two species and separate solutions	112(1)	2012-06-15	REVERSED
141	leapfrog and ksr	obviousness	103	2012-06-19	AFFIRMED
142	dailey	significance of shapes must be disclosed in spec	103	2012-06-20	REVERSED
143	Typhoon Touch, Microprocessor Enhancement, Ergo Licensing, Telecordia	"capable of" test requires that prior art be capable of performing the function without further programming.	prior art	2012-06-20	REVERSED
144	dealertrack and cybersource	to overcome 101 needs more than computer aided or computer implemented steps	101	2012-06-21	AFFIRMED
145	howard	obviousness is fact specific	103	2012-06-21	REVERSED
146	HTC	modifiers should be placed next to word they modify	112(1)	2012-06-22	AFFIRMED
147	Innova	improper to limit claim to embodiments in specification	112(2)	2012-06-22	AFFIRMED
148	ferguson	ordinary customary meaning for claim term comes from posita and written description	claim interpretation	2012-06-25	REVERSED
149	North American Vaccine	a and an can mean one or more but when in doubt look at spec	112(1)	2012-06-26	AFFIRMED
150	ICU Medical	all the components of assembly need not be recited in claim	112(1)/112(2)	2012-06-26	REVERSED
151	Continental Can, Oelrich	use of extrinsic evidence OK to show missing material necessarily present in prior art	prior art	2012-06-26	AFFIRMED
152	baird and jones	genus specie	103	2012-06-27	REVERSED
153	yoon ja	251 surrender look at objective public observer	251	2012-06-28	REVERSED
154	costello and facius	102(f)	102	2012-07-02	REVERSED
155	hedges	prima facie case	103	2012-07-02	REVERSED
156	mcginley	non-obvious if combination doesn't work	103	2012-07-02	REVERSED
157	optivus	death ray is obvious	103	2012-07-03	AFFIRMED
158	techradium	wikipedia not reliable	103	2012-07-06	AFFIRMED
159	e-pass	from 2007 not old e-pass from 2003 for step order in method claims	claim interpretation	2012-07-06	REVERSED
160	baxter int'l	teaching away must suggest unlikely to work	103	2012-07-09	AFFIRMED
161	boston scientific	combining two embodiments next to each other in same prior art not inventive	103	2012-07-10	AFFIRMED
162	skoner	expected beneficial results are evidence of obvious	103	2012-07-10	AFFIRMED
163	mayo	101	101	2012-07-11	REVERSED
164	wyers	for analogous art construed broadly	103	2012-07-13	AFFIRMED
165	bradford, johnson worldwide	"coupled to" doesn't require a physical coupling	claim interpretation	2012-07-16	AFFIRMED
166	microsoft	Justice Ginsberg for software not patentable	101	2012-07-17	AFFIRMED
167	rouffet	Judge Rader for hindsight	103	2012-07-17	REVERSED
168	bayer, cronin, MIT, northern telecom, wyer	prior art has to be publicly accessible	prior art	2012-07-18	REVERSED
169	hyatt, chester	prima facie burden met by adequately explaining shortcomings putting applicant on notice	102	2012-07-19	AFFIRMED
170	interconnect	when picking and choosing certain elements from various prior art have to show suggestion or motivation	103	2012-07-19	AFFIRMED
171	crown packaging, lampi	embodiment drawings don't limit written description	112(1)	2012-07-19	REVERSED
172	antonie	need to identify result effective variable for ranges	103	2012-07-20	REVERSED
173	grain processing	hindsight	103	2012-07-20	REVERSED
174	clay	no longer in MPEP for analogous art	prior art	2012-07-20	AFFIRMED
175	boesch and sebek	ranges in chemical context	103	2012-07-23	REVERSED
176	eli lilly and berg	two way test for obviousness-type double patenting	double patenting	2012-07-23	AFFIRMED
177	gartside and dembiczak	combinations and TSM	103	2012-07-24	REVERSED
178	mouttet and etter	combinations don't require actual physical substitution of elements	103	2012-07-24	AFFIRMED
179	fresenius, schering	markush claims - one alternative in prior art is enough	claim interpretation	2012-07-25	AFFIRMED
180	spada, ludtke, king	examiner hasn't shown sound basis to shift burden	claim interpretation	2012-07-25	REVERSED
181	fitzgerald and best	inherency and prima facie obviousness have equal burden of proof	claim interpretation	2012-07-26	AFFIRMED
182	multiform	assigning special meaning ok if departure from common usage would be understood by posita	claim interpretation	2012-07-26	AFFIRMED
183	lamberti, merck2	preferred embodiment in prior art not controlling	103	2012-07-27	AFFIRMED
184	techradium	wikipedia unreliable	103	2012-07-27	AFFIRMED
185	skvorecz	lack of antecedent basis doesn't render claim indefinite if POSITA would understand it.	112(2)	2012-07-27	REVERSED
186	epstein	non-prior art publications ok for sale before critical date	prior art	2012-07-27	AFFIRMED
187	vaidyanathan	obviousness rejection examiner can't just make conclusory statements	103	2012-07-30	REVERSED
188	CLS	claim directed to subjective mental process is nothing more than fundamental truth	101	2012-07-31	AFFIRMED
189	mayo	S.Ct.s new 101 analysis	101	2012-07-31	AFFIRMED
190	mouttet	obviousness combination doesn't require physical substitution	103	2012-07-31	AFFIRMED
191	Kubin	post KSR no formalistic rules for obviousness	103	2012-08-01	AFFIRMED
192	CAE Screenplates	different terms mean different things	claim interpretation	2012-08-01	REVERSED
193	johns hopkins, engel indus	for enable any mode of making meets enablement req.	112(1)	2012-08-03	REVERSED
194	centocore	written description in biotech setting	112(1)	2012-08-06	REVERSED
195	doyle	251 reissue	claim interpretation	2012-08-06	AFFIRMED
196	constant	if applicant says something is prior art it can be used for both 102 znd 103	prior art	2012-08-07	AFFIRMED
197	apotex and reinhart	combinations have to have reasonable expectation of success	103	2012-08-08	REVERSED
198	zickendraht	public policy against double patenting Judge Rich concurrence	double patenting	2012-08-08	AFFIRMED
199	skvorecz	lack of antecedent basis doesn't render claim indefinite if POSITA could understand it...	112(2)	2012-08-09	REVERSED
200	sud-chemie	secondary considerations	103	2012-08-10	AFFIRMED
201	vas-cath and ruschig	written description	112(1)	2012-08-10	AFFIRMED
202	zenon and cook	incorporation by reference	112(1)	2012-08-10	AFFIRMED
203	kao	103 overturned interesting remand from fed circuit	103	2012-08-13	REVERSED
204	innovatit and atofina	if ranges only slightly overlap no anticipation	102	2012-08-14	REVERSED
205	loughlin	AIA	103	2012-08-15	AFFIRMED
206	barker and lockwood	written description/obviousness distinction	112(1)	2012-08-15	AFFIRMED
207	lockwood, jepson and ariad	written description spec must necessarily disclose invention	112(1)	2012-08-16	AFFIRMED
208	leithem	need fair opportunity to respond	103	2012-08-17	REVERSED
209	mintz	no objective indicia of non-obviousness	103	2012-08-17	REVERSED
210	unigene	obviousness requires more than separate references	103	2012-08-20	REVERSED
211	American Academy of Science, Bicon, Philips	BRI and claim interpretation	claim interpretation	2012-08-21	REVERSED
212	montgomery	efficacy inherent in method claims and merely proposed anticipates	102	2012-08-22	AFFIRMED
213	japiske	was just location of a switch not multiple differences in combination of references	103	2012-08-22	REVERSED
214	ochiai	no per se rule of unpatentability	103	2012-08-22	REVERSED
215	gyurik	each case has it's own merits	103	2012-08-23	AFFIRMED
216	asahi/america and sachs	reduction to practice	prior art	2012-08-23	AFFIRMED
217	kemps	prior art need not recognize problem solved	prior art	2012-08-24	AFFIRMED
218	mayo, bancorp	101	101	2012-08-27	AFFIRMED
219	voss	reversal not a mandate for issuance	103	2012-08-27	AFFIRMED
220	welker, mas-hamilton	arrangement for same as "means for"	112(6)	2012-08-27	REVERSED
221	resqnet, katz1	indicia of publication	prior art	2012-08-27	AFFIRMED
222	lee	103 have to explain reasoning	103	2012-08-28	REVERSED
223	welker bearing	generic terms mechanism, means, element, device not enough to make claim means-plus-function	112(6)	2012-08-28	AFFIRMED
224	typhoon techs and microprocessor	prior art must be capable of performing function without further programming	prior art	2012-08-28	REVERSED
225	cybersource	abstract idea non-statutory	101	2012-08-29	AFFIRMED
226	van ornum, fallaux	harrasment justification for obviousness-type double patenting	obviousness-type double patenting	2012-08-29	AFFIRMED
227	CAE	different terms mean different things	claim interpretation	2012-08-31	REVERSED
228	ClearValue, Atofina	have to demonstrate criticality of range	102	2012-09-03	REVERSED
229	Intellectual Pro., Kelley	single structure can't read on multiple claim limitations, claim construction must be reasonable	claim interpretation	2012-09-03	AFFIRMED
230	sundance	combined prior art reasonably expected to maintain respective property or function after combined	103	2012-09-05	AFFIRMED
231	aspex	BRI - "configured to" defines apparatus by what it does	claim interpretation	2012-09-05	AFFIRMED
232	ahlert, knapp monarch	only notice of facts that defy dispute	103	2012-09-06	REVERSED
233	cohesive tech	"about" used in numeric range to avoid strict numerical boundary	claim interpretation	2012-09-07	AFFIRMED
234	schreiber, swinehart	examiner must describe inherent functional limitation.	claim interpretation	2012-09-07	REVERSED
235	brink	ambiguous reference no good under 102	102	2012-09-10	REVERSED
236	anderson	mere rephrasing not new matter	112(1)	2012-09-10	AFFIRMED
237	papesch	obviousness compound and its properties the same	103	2012-09-11	AFFIRMED
238	wood, clay	analogous art two prong test, within field of inventor's endevor and if not, reasonably pertinent to problem involved - logially would have commended itself to inventor's attention	103	2012-09-12	AFFIRMED
239	ACTV	surrounding claim language must be considered	claim interpretation	2012-09-13	REVERSED
240	baldwin graphic	a for "one" needs support	claim interpretation	2012-09-20	AFFIRMED
241	transclean corp	inherency in 2400 communications	102	2012-09-21	AFFIRMED
242	applied materials	if property affected the variable it is a result effective variable	103	2012-09-21	AFFIRMED
243	metabolite	claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim invention - viewing glass is POSITA	112	2012-09-21	REVERSED
244	comiskey	mental process not patentable	101	2012-09-24	AFFIRMED
245	eolas	must disclaim embodiment in spec to narrow claim scope	claim interpretation	2012-09-24	AFFIRMED
246	fulton, beattie, winner international	desirability not most desirable for combination being obvious	103	2012-09-25	AFFIRMED
247	wrigley	for genus so large species not obviousness to POSITA	102	2012-09-26	REVERSED
248	monarch	for hindsight	103	2012-09-26	REVERSED
249	st. regis	for mere duplication of parts	103	2012-09-26	AFFIRMED
250	De Seversky	for incorporation by reference	102	2012-10-01	REVERSED
251	Strahilevitz	for working examples not needed for 112(1)	112	2012-10-01	REVERSED
252	Strahilevitz	for working examples not needed for 112(1)	112(1)	2012-10-01	REVERSED
253	TAP	"contain" is open ended	claim interpretation	2012-10-01	AFFIRMED
254	rijckaert	obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown	103	2012-10-03	REVERSED
255	hoch	for examiner has to cite reference to support rejection	103	2012-10-10	REVERSED
256	seid	ornament not enough	103	2012-10-12	AFFIRMED
257	falkner, lizardtech	for written description	112(1)	2012-10-12	REVERSED
258	vaeck and falkner	for don't have to disclose every species to be enabled	112	2012-10-15	REVERSED
259	atlas powder and angstadt	for still enabled though encompasses inoperative elements	112(1)	2012-10-15	REVERSED
260	vaeck, falkner	for don't have to disclose every species to be enabled	112(1)	2012-10-15	REVERSED
261	masham	for saying how it is intended to be employed doesn't distinguish prior art	claim interpretation	2012-10-15	AFFIRMED
262	paperless	rejection that has not been commented on by examiner is not adverse decision of board	102	2012-10-16	AFFIRMED
263	perfect web, bozek, mintz	the words common sense add nothing	103	2012-10-16	REVERSED
264	paperless	rejection that has not been commented on by examiner is not adverse decision of board	appellate procedure	2012-10-16	AFFIRMED
265	aller, dreyfus, waite	optimization of ranges obvious	103	2012-10-17	AFFIRMED
266	voss, borkowski, arkley, fisher	post appeal PTO can always reopen prosecution	appellate procedure	2012-10-17	REVERSED
267	langer, gaubert	for utility	101	2012-10-18	REVERSED
268	nuijten	transmission media = wireless = signal unpatentable under 101	101	2012-10-19	AFFIRMED
269	baxter travenol, chapman, burckel	for unexpected results need only be between closest prior art and invention	103	2012-10-19	REVERSED
270	general foods	in nonstatutory double patenting the earlier app is not available for a 103 rejection	103	2012-10-19	REVERSED
271	greenfield, tiffin, kollman	unexpected results needs more than a few data points to be commensurate in scope with claims	103	2012-10-19	AFFIRMED
272	hyatt	single means means-plus-function claim not permissable	112	2012-10-22	AFFIRMED
273	CAE Screenplates	consistent use of different terms implies different meanings	claim interpretation	2012-10-23	REVERSED
274	nuijten	"tangible computer readable medium" encompasses transitory signal	101	2012-10-24	AFFIRMED
275	media tech	secondary considerations can't overcome strong 103	103	2012-10-24	AFFIRMED
276	tiffin	commercial success must be commensurate with the claims	103	2012-10-24	AFFIRMED
277	SRI	claims measure the invention	claim interpretation	2012-10-24	AFFIRMED
278	KSR	on a slow day...	103	2012-10-25	AFFIRMED
279	atlas powder	discovery of unappreciated property does not render old composition new	102	2012-10-26	AFFIRMED
280	kollman	for trend in results OK even when full scope of claim not tested	103	2012-10-26	REVERSED
281	rinehart	prima facie case, if rebutted, gotta start over	103	2012-10-26	REVERSED
282	howard v. detroit stoveworks	combinations are fact specific	103	2012-10-29	AFFIRMED
283	levengood	old BPAI case for 103	103	2012-11-01	REVERSED
284	amgen4	enablement more indulgent than written description	112	2012-11-01	REVERSED
285	hartman	bpai doesn't have to address each and every argument	appellate procedure	2012-11-02	AFFIRMED
286	SiRF	MOT test machine must impose meaningful limit on scope of claim	101	2012-11-06	AFFIRMED
287	katz interactive	using general purpose computer in business methods claims OK not indefinite functional claiming...	112	2012-11-07	REVERSED
288	depuy spine	for reference to teach away it must criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage...	103	2012-11-08	AFFIRMED
289	Dunn	alternative method doesn't teach away	103	2012-11-08	AFFIRMED
290	Thibault	no per se rule contents and mode of operation of invention don't count, just that if disclosed structures are the same would have been obvious	103	2012-11-08	REVERSED
291	Innovention Toys, Clay	if prior art is not analogous then would it have logically commended itself	prior art	2012-11-08	AFFIRMED
292	Lowry	for non-functional descriptive language	claim interpretation	2012-11-09	AFFIRMED
293	bond, sneed, schriber-schroth	BRI needs support in spec	claim interpretation	2012-11-12	REVERSED
294	robertson	diaper case three fasteners don't equal two	claim interpretation	2012-11-12	REVERSED
295	superguide	can't read particular embodiment into claims if claim language broader...	claim interpretation	2012-11-14	AFFIRMED
296	mouttete	just because better alternatives exist, prior art not inapt for obviousness	prior art	2012-11-14	AFFIRMED
297	luvisi	"needle in a haystack" obviousness of member of group of compounds	103	2012-11-15	REVERSED
298	nievelt	combining teachings doesn't mean combining structures	103	2012-11-15	AFFIRMED
299	allvoice	"clear linkage or association" of structure to function recited in claim is based on POSITA	claim interpretation	2012-11-16	REVERSED
300	ferguson	meaning of "ordinary" and "customary"	claim interpretation	2012-11-16	REVERSED
301	epstein	anticipation is factual inquiry resolved by preponderance of the evidence	102	2012-11-19	REVERSED
302	burroughs, sewall, hybridtech, coleman	conception is the completion of the mental part of the invention	interference	2012-11-19	AFFIRMED
303	wesslau	for can't pick and choose from prior art excluding what it would have suggested to POSITA	prior art	2012-11-19	REVERSED
304	grams, myers	for mere data-gathering step can't make nonstatutory claim statutory	101	2012-11-20	AFFIRMED
305	fox, ahlert	for not challenging official notice defaults to affirming examiner	103	2012-11-20	AFFIRMED
306	Constant, Reading & Bates	related art is not prior art if inventor's own work, even if labelled PRIOR ART	priior art	2012-11-21	REVERSED
307	landgraf, muchmore	a claim is unpatentable if it encompasses unpatentable embodiment or reads on unpatentable subject matter	101	2012-11-22	AFFIRMED
308	lintner	used for different purpose but still prima facie obvious	103	2012-11-22	AFFIRMED
309	serrano	inventors' definition of meaning of term controls	112	2012-11-22	AFFIRMED
310	spitzglass	functional limitations pre 112(6)	112	2012-11-22	AFFIRMED
311	star sci	for only insolubly ambiguous claims indefinite	112(2)	2012-11-26	REVERSED
312	ipxl	claims cannot be directed to combinations of classes of invention	112(2)	2012-11-27	AFFIRMED
313	rishoi	recitation of material worked on doesn't differentiate structure	claim interpretation	2012-11-27	AFFIRMED
314	ayest	commercial success must be tied to features of invention	103	2012-11-28	AFFIRMED
315	leshin	selection of material based on suitability is a design consideration any POSITA would know	103	2012-11-28	AFFIRMED
316	superguide	don't read particular embodiment into claim	112	2012-11-28	AFFIRMED
317	wyer	printed publication must be disseminated	prior art	2012-11-28	AFFIRMED
318	fisher	utility can't be meaningless	101	2012-11-29	AFFIRMED
319	kao	if embodiment falling within claim encompasses unexpected result then nonobvious	103	2012-11-29	REVERSED
320	ricoh	teaching away requires being discouraged from following path	103	2012-11-29	AFFIRMED
321	datamize	claim scope cannot depend on subjective opinion of particular individual, it's a public objective standard	claim interpretation	2012-11-29	AFFIRMED
322	dailey	change in shape of graphic doesn't affect method step	103	2012-12-03	AFFIRMED
323	erlich, clinical products	process claim has to have at least one active step	112	2012-12-03	AFFIRMED
324	caveney and oetiker	for preponderance of the evidence	103	2012-12-04	REVERSED
325	strahilevitz	after examiner satisfies burden of proof for non-enablement applicant must show no undue experimentation	112	2012-12-05	REVERSED
326	mayo, bilski	mental processes not patentable and machine-transformation test not sole test	101	2012-12-06	REVERSED
327	pharmstem, merck, corkill, susi	possible choices of species among genus obvious if prior art provides direction	103	2012-12-06	AFFIRMED
328	maziere	incorporation by reference for earlier priority date	112	2012-12-06	AFFIRMED
329	mentor	recapture rule	251	2012-12-06	AFFIRMED
330	pitney, boehringer	preamble gives life, if without it steps are mothing but academic exercise	claim interpretation	2012-12-06	REVERSED
331	yorkey, crish, celeritas	determining that a claim is anticipated is a two step process	102	2012-12-07	REVERSED
332	bush, boyer	sustaining multiple reference rejection but relying on only one OK	103	2012-12-07	AFFIRMED
333	thompson, kuhle	elimination of a prior art feature along with its function is obvious	103	2012-12-07	AFFIRMED
334	rambus	intergrated circuit device means chip	claim interpretation	2012-12-10	AFFIRMED
335	biomedino	because based on claims indefiniteness is a question of law	112(2)	2012-12-11	AFFIRMED
336	mars	"comprising" and "including" are synonymous	claim interpretation	2012-12-11	REVERSED
337	katz interactive, aristocrat	112(6) general purpose computer ok but needs algorithm	112(6)	2012-12-12	REVERSED
338	olson	drawings merely illustrative	prior art	2012-12-12	AFFIRMED
339	innovention, bigio, clay	test for analogous art in 103 a. same field b. reasonable pertinent to problem. reasonable pertinent means would have commended itself to inventor considering problem	103	2012-12-13	AFFIRMED
340	brana	usefulness in pharma includes expectation of further research	112(1)	2012-12-13	REVERSED
341	suitco surface, bowles and papst-motoren	BRI does apply to patents in reexam but does not apply to expired patents	claim interpretation	2012-12-14	AFFIRMED
342	De Lajarte, hoffman	if prior art adds a step to "consisting essentially of" claim, applicant has to prove step materially changes characteristics of invention	prior art	2012-12-17	REVERSED
343	griver	103 doesn't have to include everything from each reference	103	2012-12-19	AFFIRMED
344	paptst-motoren and bowles	reexam of expired patent is not BRI	claim interpretation	2012-12-19	AFFIRMED
345	Tec Air	if proposed modification makes prior art unsatisfactory for it's purpose, not obvious	103	2012-12-20	REVERSED
346	bell & howell, roton barrier	inventors and attorney's testimony after the fact and of little weight in claim construction.	claim interpretation	2012-12-20	AFFIRMED
347	york, amhil	substantially means largely but not wholly what is specified	claim interpretation	2012-12-20	REVERSED
348	asahi	conclusory statements in 131 decs not enough to establish reduction to practice	prior art	2012-12-20	AFFIRMED
349	rosco	inherency must be necesssarily present	102	2012-12-21	REVERSED
350	demaco	need nexus in declarations to prove non-obviousness	103	2012-12-21	AFFIRMED
351	katz	can't use applicant's own disclosure against him/her	103	2012-12-24	REVERSED
352	vogel, basell	applicant's disclosure can be used to determine one claim merely obvious variation of another	double patenting nonstatutory obviousness-type	2012-12-24	AFFIRMED
353	michalek, reid	failures of experimenters with no interest in succeeding given no weight	103	2012-12-27	AFFIRMED
354	anchor	generally parallel envisions some deviation	claim interpretation	2012-12-27	AFFIRMED
355	laryngeal	for patentee to be lexicographer must put special def in spec	claim interpretation	2012-12-27	AFFIRMED
356	york, deering	substantially = "largely but not wholly", "largely", "essentially"	claim interpretation	2012-12-27	AFFIRMED
357	jung, kinetic concepts	prima facie case in combination needs reason to combine, which is a question of fact	103	2012-12-28	AFFIRMED
358	boehringer	being configured to language just intended use	claim interpretation	2012-12-28	AFFIRMED
359	storage tech, allen eng., IMS	body of claim doesn't depend on preamble	claim interpretation	2012-12-28	AFFIRMED
360	genetics institute	post-filing evidence may be used to demonstrate unexpected results.	103	2013-01-02	REVERSED
361	mayhew	missing critical element means lack of enablement not indefiniteness	112(1)	2013-01-02	AFFIRMED
362	self	Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language.	102	2013-01-04	AFFIRMED
363	hiniker	Unclaimed features cannot impart patentability to claims.	claim interpretation	2013-01-04	AFFIRMED
364	perreria, beattie	expert opinion, declarations only as good as facts supporting them	103	2013-01-07	AFFIRMED
365	koito, genentech	112 requires meaningful disclosure so posita can make and use without undue experimentation	112(1)	2013-01-07	AFFIRMED
366	fiers	need more than similar language in spec to support written description requirement	112(1)	2013-01-08	AFFIRMED
367	alton	examiner must consider declaration	103	2013-01-09	REVERSED
368	genentech, automotive tech	specification must supply novel aspect, and novel aspect must be enabled	112(1)	2013-01-09	AFFIRMED
369	amgen3, kubin	POSITA must have reasonable expectation of success in light of prior art.	103	2013-01-10	REVERSED
370	huia-hung kao, king	for descriptive material to be functional it must transform the claim's method	claim interpretation	2013-01-11	AFFIRMED
371	cybersource, research corp, claussen	method that can be performed by human thought alone not patentable	101	2013-01-14	AFFIRMED
372	santaurus	negative limitations must be explained in the spec	112(1)	2013-01-14	AFFIRMED
373	kerkhovan	requires that each of the prior art compositions be useful for the same pupose	103	2013-01-15	REVERSED
374	tokai	strong prima facie case of obviousness cannot be overcome with weak objective indicia of nonobviousness	103	2013-01-16	AFFIRMED
375	thibault, otto	inclusion of article or material worked upon by structure does not impart patentablilty	claim interpretation	2013-01-16	AFFIRMED
376	flo healthcare	can't import written description limitations into the claims	102	2013-01-17	REVERSED
377	boston scientific	combining two embodiments disclosed next to each other is obvious	103	2013-01-17	AFFIRMED
378	antor	prior art enablement only requires that it teach POSITA to make or carry out what it discloses	102	2013-01-18	AFFIRMED
379	dike, advanced cardiovascular	"integral" covers more than unitary or "one-piece" construction	103	2013-01-18	AFFIRMED
380	kao	commesurate in scope with the claims does not mean testing every embodiment just adequate basis for support	103	2013-01-18	REVERSED
381	clearvalue	prior art approaching claimed range may render obvious ranges without allegations of criticality	103	2013-01-21	AFFIRMED
382	tomlinson	for admixing of compounds obvious	103	2013-01-23	AFFIRMED
383	rembrandt	ambiguous hybrid claims indefinite	112(2)	2013-01-23	AFFIRMED
384	hedges, young	if applicant rebuts prima facie case, entire matter is to be reweighed	103	2013-01-25	REVERSED
385	wesslau	for obviousness	103	2013-01-25	REVERSED
386	applied materials	prior art recognition that a variable affects a property is enough to make it result-effective and optimum value for result-effective variable is within POSITA skill	103	2013-01-28	AFFIRMED
387	free motion fitness	in claim differentiation difference is significant if absence of difference would make claim superfluous	claim interpretation	2013-01-30	AFFIRMED
388	sjolund	in jepson claims preamble is admitted prior art	prior art	2013-01-30	AFFIRMED
389	hogan, plant genetic systems	later publications can be used to show state of the art existing on the filing date	112(1)	2013-01-31	AFFIRMED
390	mayo collaborative, perkinelmer	well-understood, routine activity not enough to turn abstract idea into patent-eligible concept	101	2013-02-01	AFFIRMED
391	typhoon touch, microprocessor enhancement	prior art structure must be able to perform function without further processing	prior art	2013-02-01	AFFIRMED
392	Playtex v. P.G.	for "flatten" needs more to distingush it from some other object	claim interpretation	2013-02-04	AFFIRMED
393	legrice and elsner	plant genetics enabling prior art POSITA must be able to grow and cultivate the plant	prior art	2013-02-05	AFFIRMED
394	ksr	operative question is whether improvement is predictable use of prior art according to their established functions.	103	2013-02-06	REVERSED
395	nystrom, phillips and sunrace	doctrine of claim differentiation - when there are different words in separate claims different meaning presumed, with dependant claim presumed that limitation is not present in independant claim, esp when one party wants lmitation read into independant claim.	claim interpretation	2013-02-07	AFFIRMED
396	santarus	more than mere silence required for negative claim limitations	112(1)	2013-02-08	AFFIRMED
397	morris	BRI	claim interpretation	2013-02-08	REVERSED
398	heyna	clear and convincing evidence for unexpected property	103	2013-02-12	AFFIRMED
399	mcclain	conclusive evidence for new function	103	2013-02-12	AFFIRMED
400	Chase Elevator	if omission of element includes ommission of its function, no invention if retained elements perform same function as before	103	2013-02-20	AFFIRMED
401	McLaughlin	hindsight reasoning	103	2013-02-20	AFFIRMED
402	CCS Fitness	claim terms include limitations when defined in spec	claim interpretation	2013-02-21	REVERSED
403	Phillips	examples in spec can be used to teach POSITA	claim interpretation	2013-02-21	REVERSED
404	mcguire	no matter how old prior art, still have to show tried and failed to solve problem	prior art	2013-02-21	AFFIRMED
405	santarus, omega	negative claim limitations need support in spec, a reason to exclude limitation	112(1)	2013-02-22	AFFIRMED
406	donohue	failure is evidence of nonenabling, not attempting is not	prior art	2013-02-22	AFFIRMED
407	mullin, herbert	intermediate products can anticipate	102	2013-02-25	AFFIRMED
408	grasselli, johnson	negative limitations may violate description req., but to say one describes genus but not genus minus two species is too hypertechnical, legalistic	112(1)	2013-03-05	AFFIRMED
409	Icon	an inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for portable computers would naturally look to other similar references	103	2013-03-06	AFFIRMED
410	hiniker	name claim game	claim interpretation	2013-03-07	AFFIRMED
411	self	can't read limitations from spec into claim.	claim interpretation	2013-03-07	AFFIRMED
412	innova	claim construction centered on claim language	102	2013-03-08	AFFIRMED
413	bicon	claim language should not be treated as meaningless	claim interpretation	2013-03-08	REVERSED
414	miller, vogel	statutory double patenting same invention means identical subject matter	double patenting statutory	2013-03-08	REVERSED
415	janakirama, PPG	consisting essentially of opens claims to ingredients that don't affect basic characteristics of compositions, but specification must be consulted.	claim interpretation	2013-03-11	REVERSED
416	chu	design choice only appropriate when applicant fails to say why would result in different function	103	2013-03-12	REVERSED
417	nash, olson	drawings not to scale, merely illustrative	prior art	2013-03-12	REVERSED
418	CCS, flo healthcare, greenberg, lighting world, MIT	overcoming applicant's presumption against invocation of 112(6) by not using "means"	112(6)	2013-03-13	AFFIRMED
419	case	precedent cannot establish facts	103	2013-03-15	REVERSED
420	cortright	BRI cannot conflict with meaning of identical terms in patents from analogous art	103	2013-03-15	REVERSED
421	eaton, richdel	commercial success must be due to something not readily available	103	2013-03-15	AFFIRMED
422	zumbriel, bicon	claim preamble limiting when limitation in body relies on it	claim interpretation	2013-03-15	REVERSED
423	umbarger, ratti	modification renders unsatisfactory for purpose inapplicable where operates on same principles as before	103	2013-03-18	AFFIRMED
424	union oil, vas-cath	claim doesn't need same words as spec, just so POSITA would know inventor invented it	112(1)	2013-03-18	REVERSED
425	etter, nievelt, andersen	references need not be capable of physical combination to show obviousness	103	2013-03-19	AFFIRMED
426	mannesmann, berenter	transitional term "comprising" does not broaden markush group	claim interpretation	2013-03-20	REVERSED
427	geneva, symbol, pfizer	nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting	double patenting nonstatutory obviousness-type	2013-03-20	AFFIRMED
428	arkley	no picking, choosing, combining in a 102	102	2013-03-21	REVERSED
429	boston scientific scimed	examiner must explain how "combining two embodiments next to each other in a prior art is obvious" pertains to particular case	103	2013-03-21	REVERSED
430	NTP, Jasinski	each and every limitation explicit or inherent for a 102	102	2013-03-22	REVERSED
431	larson	ordinary skill to remove a feature not being used	103	2013-03-22	AFFIRMED
432	gulack	printed matter but interrelated to circularity of underlying substrate so new product	claim interpretation	2013-03-22	REVERSED
433	angstadt	inoperative embodiment doesn't render unpatentable	112(1)	2013-03-25	REVERSED
434	hogan	using later state of the art not ok for 112(1) lack of enablement	112(1)	2013-03-25	REVERSED
435	deckler	interference estoppel	prior art	2013-03-25	AFFIRMED
436	dealertrack	machine or transformation test still useful	101	2013-03-26	AFFIRMED
437	trans texas	can't import limitations from spec but can use broader dictionary definition	claim interpretation	2013-03-26	AFFIRMED
438	mouttet, bush, cowles	no legal significance whether primary or secondary reference	103	2013-03-27	AFFIRMED
439	teva, o'farrell	exploring promising new field where prior art just gives general guidance may be obvious but no bar to getting a patent	103	2013-03-27	REVERSED
440	bey	diligence for constructive reduction to practice requires showing attorney diligence	102	2013-03-28	AFFIRMED
441	mulder, gould	proof of due diligence required no matter how short the period,	102	2013-03-28	AFFIRMED
442	baldwin, interactive gift	claim can implicitly require method steps in particular order	103	2013-03-28	REVERSED
443	cont'l paper bag	invention not confined to particular form or mode described	103	2013-03-29	AFFIRMED
444	lindberg	making portable obvious	103	2013-03-29	AFFIRMED
445	donaldson, aristocrat, WMS	in computer-implemented means-plus-function claim corresponding structure must include algorithm and spec must disclose	112(2)/112(6)	2013-03-29	REVERSED
446	sasse	reference relied on that expressly anticipates or makes obvious presumed operable	prior art	2013-03-29	AFFIRMED
447	robotic	silence in prior art doesn't meet 102 anticipation standard for disclosure	102	2013-04-01	REVERSED
448	alcon research, KSR	motivation to modify prior art doesn't need to be same motivation applicant had	103	2013-04-02	AFFIRMED
449	donaldson, carroll, valmont, johnston	112 (6) BRI interpretation requires prior art to perform identical function with equivalent structure	112(6)	2013-04-02	REVERSED
450	brown	102 inherency or 103 obviousness burden of proof is the same	102	2013-04-03	REVERSED
451	eynde, ahlert	facts comstituting state of the art not amenable to official notice	103	2013-04-03	REVERSED
452	dealertrack, cybersource	computer aided limitation to method claim not enough unless claim says how and extent computer is integrated and aids the method	101	2013-04-08	AFFIRMED
453	borden	can't raise argument for first time in reply brief unless real good reason	appellate procedure	2013-04-09	AFFIRMED
454	fox, kunzmann	appellant must address facts upon which examiner rests obviousness rejection	103	2013-04-10	AFFIRMED
455	schreiber	prior art with each and every structural limitation capable of performing each and every function anticipates	102	2013-04-11	AFFIRMED
456	ratti	ratti if modification requires changing basic principle of operation doesn't render obvious	103	2013-04-11	REVERSED
457	IPXL	can't mix apparatus and method claims	112(2)	2013-04-11	AFFIRMED
458	fressmann, marosi	USPTO has lesser burden of proof for obviousness in product by process claims	103	2013-04-12	AFFIRMED
459	altenpohl	corrections to avoid indefiniteness ok in reissue within two years	112(2)	2013-04-12	REVERSED
460	schreiber	conversion from active steps to functional language broadens claim	claim interpretation	2013-04-12	REVERSED
461	schumer	if body of claim sets out complete invention, preamble not limiting	claim interpretation	2013-04-12	AFFIRMED
462	saab	prima facie case party with burden of proof points to evidence that if uncontroverted entitles it to prevail as a matter of law	103	2013-04-15	REVERSED
463	dunbar	spec may provide context but not at expense of actual claim language	claim interpretation	2013-04-15	AFFIRMED
464	ratti	hindsight when at time invention made not obvious without benefit of disclosure	103	2013-04-16	REVERSED
465	edwards	spec doesn't have to include subject matter POSITA would commonly understand	claim interpretation	2013-04-17	AFFIRMED
466	univ. of pittsburgh	spec to impart different meaning must demonstrate intent to deviate from ordinary meaning	claim interpretation	2013-04-17	AFFIRMED
467	ariad	test for written description is whether spec reasonably conveys to POSITA inventor had possession	112(1)	2013-04-18	REVERSED
468	hyatt	failure to contest rejection waived and PTO can affirm without weighing merits	appellate procedure	2013-04-18	AFFIRMED
469	cybersource	no matter what statuatory category look to underlying invention to determine patent-eligibility	101	2013-04-19	AFFIRMED
470	lantech	single conveyor doesn't infringe claim element requiring two conveyors	103	2013-04-19	REVERSED
471	CIAS, norian, gray	"consisting of" means only what is expressly set forth in claim	103	2013-04-22	AFFIRMED
472	tronzo	to be inherent must necessarily be present in spec such that POSITA would recognize disclosure of missing descriptive material	112(1)	2013-04-22	REVERSED
473	fout, siebentritt	when two known alternatives are interchangeable for same function, substituting one for the other still obvious	103	2013-04-23	AFFIRMED
474	in re merck, keller	can not show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where rejection based on combination	103	2013-04-23	AFFIRMED
475	klosak, mcclain	must show results inventor gets are obtained by invention	103	2013-04-23	AFFIRMED
476	aslanian	prior art drawing can be used even though feature unexplained	prior art	2013-04-23	AFFIRMED
477	medichem	simultaneous advantages and disadvantages still won't obviate motivation to combine	103	2013-04-24	AFFIRMED
478	mems tech	coupled means both direct and indirect coupling	claim interpretation	2013-04-24	AFFIRMED
479	norgren	claim drawn to four-sided generally rectangular clamp means whole clamp is, not just portion	claim interpretation	2013-04-24	REVERSED
480	rouffet	hindsight inferred when specific principal within knowledge of POSITA leading to modification of prior art not explained	103	2013-04-25	REVERSED
481	texas instruments	an express limitation cannot be read out of a claim, BRI not withstanding	claim interpretation	2013-04-25	REVERSED
482	nuijten, chakrabarty, ferguson, gottschalk, miller	examples of claims not directed to 101 statutory category	101	2013-04-26	AFFIRMED
483	aristocrat, function media, finisar	an algorithm may be described in a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, any manner that provides sufficient structure to satisfy 112(6) means plus function and avoid 112(2) indefiniteness rejection	112(2)/112(6)	2013-04-26	REVERSED
484	seachange	teaching away irrelevant to anticipation	102	2013-04-29	AFFIRMED
485	depuy spine	combination requires that would have worked for intended purpose	103	2013-04-29	REVERSED
486	orthokinetics	test for definiteness would POSITA have understood claim in light of spec	112(2)	2013-04-29	REVERSED
487	biogen	examiner uses BRI	claim interpretation	2013-04-29	AFFIRMED
488	sensonics, gore, interconnect	cannot draw on applicant's invention as template for it's own reconstruction	103	2013-05-02	REVERSED
489	energizer holdings	if posita can ascertain scope of claim, not indefinite	112(2)	2013-05-02	REVERSED
490	miles labs	test for definiteness is would POSITA understand scope from spec	112(2)	2013-05-02	REVERSED
491	allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes	preamble does not limit claim unless recites essential structure or steps	claim interpretation	2013-05-03	AFFIRMED
492	cordis	claim construction is question of law reviewed de novo	claim interpretation	2013-05-03	AFFIRMED
493	schreiber, k-2	prior art apparatus must be able to perform functional limitation in apparatus claim	claim interpretation	2013-05-06	REVERSED
494	ranbaxy	dependant claim that broadens by extending scope of subject matter rather than limiting subject matter invalid under 112(4)	112(4)	2013-05-07	REVERSED
495	hewlett-packard	apparatus claim covers what device is not what it does	claim interpretation	2013-05-08	AFFIRMED
496	aslanian	drawings can be used for all they disclose, no matter whether explained in spec	prior art	2013-05-08	AFFIRMED
497	IPXL	two separate statutory classes of invention in one claim not allowed	112(2)	2013-05-09	AFFIRMED
498	katz interactive, rembrandt	one claim including both statutory machine and statutory process not allowed	112(2)	2013-05-09	AFFIRMED
499	ekchian	applicant's remarks submitted with IDS can be basis for limiting claim scope	claim interpretation	2013-05-09	AFFIRMED
500	aoyama, golight	in 112(6) first step is define function of means, then look to spec to find structure for that function.	112(6)	2013-05-10	REVERSED
501	donaldson	PTO must look to spec and construe means as limited to corresponding structure and equivalents	112(6)	2013-05-10	REVERSED
502	bancorp	patent eligiility under 101 reviewed de novo	101	2013-05-11	AFFIRMED
503	aero prods.	with respect to issues of substantive patent law apply fed. cir. law	fed. cir.	2013-05-11	AFFIRMED
504	teva	review grant or denial of summary judgment by applying law of the regional circuit	fed. cir.	2013-05-11	AFFIRMED
505	theodore roosevelt	d.c. circuit considers grant or sumary judgment without deference	fed. cir.	2013-05-11	AFFIRMED
506	kuderna, shuman	obviousness is sum of all teachings in the art	103	2013-05-12	AFFIRMED
507	railroad dynamics	for commercial success need to show effort expended correcponding to length of need and others tried an fialed	103	2013-05-12	AFFIRMED
508	wright3, brandstadter	declarations fail if merely conclusory statements	103	2013-05-12	AFFIRMED
509	dsl, newkirk	reduction to practice must show embodiment worked for its intended purpose but can be outside intended environment	102	2013-05-15	AFFIRMED
510	jella	for long felt need must show art-recognized problem existed for long time without solution NOT failure of others	103	2013-05-15	REVERSED
511	glaug	general term understood in context inventor presents it	claim interpretation	2013-05-16	AFFIRMED
512	christianson	claim may arise under patent law even where patent law didn't create cause of action, if relief relies on patent law	fed. cir.	2013-05-17	REVERSED
513	goldfarb	patent law issues in malpractive claim not substantial enough to create federal jurisdiction	fed. cir.	2013-05-17	REVERSED
514	gunn	state law cause of action my arise under patent law if necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial and capable of resolution	fed. cir.	2013-05-17	REVERSED
515	GPAC	obviousness test is what combined teachings would have suggested to POSITA	103	2013-05-20	REVERSED
516	ruff	equivalence in obviousness must be recognized by POSITA and not based on applicant's disclosure or mere fact	103	2013-05-20	REVERSED
517	unigene	post-KSR requires more than separate references showing each limitation	103	2013-05-20	REVERSED
518	bond	for prior art no ipsissimis verbis test, identity of terminology is not required	prior art	2013-05-21	AFFIRMED
519	CFMT	enablement doesn't mean commercially successful	112(1)	2013-05-22	REVERSED
520	gay	best mode violation requires intentional concealment	112(1)	2013-05-22	REVERSED
521	hubbel, van ornum	obviousness-type double patenting is to prevent multiple infringement suits	obviousness-type double patenting	2013-05-22	AFFIRMED
522	clearview	need to provide evidence of criticality of claimed range	102	2013-05-27	AFFIRMED
523	fressola	incorporation by reference to spec OK where no practical way to define invention in words or more concise then duplicating drawing in claim	112(2)	2013-05-29	REVERSED
524	SIBIA	existence of licenses insufficient nexus to show commercial success to overcome obviousness	103	2013-05-30	AFFIRMED
525	Impax	anticipation only requires suggestions in prior art be enabled	102	2013-05-31	AFFIRMED
526	peterson	overlapping ranges obvious	103	2013-06-03	AFFIRMED
527	rose	change in size generally within POSITA level but not when component modified alone	103	2013-06-03	AFFIRMED
528	serenkin	deliberate action by inventor or attorney not correctable error under 251	251	2013-06-05	AFFIRMED
529	yamazaki	can't use 251 to remove terminal disclaimer	251	2013-06-05	AFFIRMED
530	caveney	examiner's factual findings about what reference discloses must be supported by preponderance of the evidence	102	2013-06-06	REVERSED
531	aslanian	drawings can be cited even though feature unexplained	prior art	2013-06-06	REVERSED
532	baum	drawing evaluated on basis of what it reasonably discloses to POSITA	prior art	2013-06-06	REVERSED
533	nehls	computer doing what could be done manually unpatentable	103	2013-06-07	AFFIRMED
534	kao	limitation that informs of method's benefits not functional	claim interpretation	2013-06-07	AFFIRMED
535	king, ngai	for manipulated information must be new and unobvious functional relationship to distinguish prior art	claim interpretation	2013-06-07	AFFIRMED
536	johnston	optional elements don't narrow claim because can always be omitted	claim interpretation	2013-06-10	AFFIRMED
537	clapper, monsanto	substantial risk of harm is necessary for jurisdiction	fed. cir.	2013-06-11	AFFIRMED
538	matthews	particular facts in each case determine justiciable controversy	fed. cir.	2013-06-11	AFFIRMED
539	sandisk	reasonable apprehension of suit not necessary	fed. cir.	2013-06-11	AFFIRMED
540	Desper Products	words of claim given ordinary meaning unless inconsistent with spec or prosecution history	claim interpretation	2013-06-13	AFFIRMED
541	chakrabarty, hartranft, myriad	point of patents is to promote creation, nonnaturally occuring manufacture is patentable, isolated genes and information they encode not patentable	101	2013-06-14	REVERSED
542	mems tech	electrically coupled not limited to directly coupled	claim interpretation	2013-06-17	REVERSED
543	dairy queen	jury right attaches even though traditional damages calculations in infringement cases are equitable accountings	fed cir	2013-06-17	AFFIRMED
544	cohesive tech	secondary considerations are not an element of anticipation	102	2013-06-18	REVERSED
545	general foods	double patenting is a matter of what is claimed	double patenting	2013-06-18	AFFIRMED
546	best, crown operations; jung, hyatt; best, schreiber	burden of proof for inherency is on Examiner; burden of production met by adequately explaining shortcomings so applicant properly notified and able to respond; burden of proof shitfts to applicant to rebut prima facie finding of inherency	102	2013-06-19	AFFIRMED
547	vitronics	even though extrinsic evidence judges free to consult dictionaries and technical treatises	claim interpretation	2013-06-19	AFFIRMED
548	geisler	unexpected results must be established by factual evidence	103	2013-06-20	AFFIRMED
549	klosak, ishizaka	person asserting unexpected results must show difference from closest prior art was unexpected	103	2013-06-20	AFFIRMED
550	peterson	unexpected results must be commensurate with scope of the claims	103	2013-06-20	AFFIRMED
551	eli lilly3, piasecki	after prima facie obviousness and rebuttal evidence submitted, all evidence considered anew	103	2013-06-21	REVERSED
552	rinehart	prima facie obviousness is legal conclusion, not fact. rebuttal evidence not evaluated against conclusion but against prior facts upon which conclusion is based	103	2013-06-21	REVERSED
553	CLS	every issued patent presumed proper unless clear and convincing evidence to contrary	101	2013-06-24	REVERSED
554	exxon research	if meaning of claim discernable not indefinite	112(2)	2013-06-24	REVERSED
555	bell atlantic, jones2	12(b)(6) appropriate only if well-pleaded facts construed in light most favorible to plaintiff suffice	S.Ct.	2013-06-24	REVERSED
556	kim, greenliant	amendment for reasons of patentability to overcome prior art is surrendered subject matter	251	2013-06-25	AFFIRMED
557	ergo, katz interactive	general purpose computer ok if "means for processing" requires no more	112(2)	2013-06-25	REVERSED
558	NTP, american academy, baxter	BRI in reexam different than in district court because different burdens of proof	claim interpretation	2013-06-25	AFFIRMED
559	einstein, gazda	mere reversal of working parts not invention	103	2013-06-26	AFFIRMED
560	global-tech	accused party must know induced acts constitute patent infringement	fed cir	2013-06-26	REVERSED
561	kloster, knorr-bremse	absence from reference of any claimed element negates anticipation	102	2013-06-27	REVERSED
562	dailey	change in shape with no change in function obvious	103	2013-06-28	REVERSED
563	dailey, gal	change in shape with no change in function obvious, however obvious design choice precluded when function different from prior art	103	2013-06-28	REVERSED
564	gal	obvious design choice precluded when function different from prior art	103	2013-06-28	REVERSED
565	mewherter	computer-readable storage medium that encomopasses transitory media uneligible under 101	101	2013-07-01	AFFIRMED
566	med. instrumentation	under 112 algorithms only need to be disclosed adequately to be understood by POSITA	112(2)/112(6)	2013-07-01	REVERSED
567	ullstrand	connected restricted to neither direct or indirect connection	claim interpretation	2013-07-01	AFFIRMED
568	toshiba, lucent	when alleged infringer instructs users to use product in infringing way, sufficient to overcome summary judgment of no inducement to infringe	fed cir	2013-07-02	REVERSED
569	tate access, KCJ	a used with open-ended claim containing "comprising"means "one or more"	claim interpretation	2013-07-03	AFFIRMED
570	etter, freeman, abbott	ex parte and inter partes reexam is curative proceeding meant to correct or eliminate erroneously granted patents	fed cir	2013-07-03	VACATED
571	mccormick, patlex	under reissue until reexam started uspto had no power to revoke or cancel previously issued patent	fed cir	2013-07-03	VACATED
572	pfizer, newell	secondary considerations may not be sufficient to overcome strong showing of obviousness	103	2013-07-10	AFFIRMED
573	allen	long-felt need 1. widespread effort 2 skilled workers 3 knowledge of prior art 4 failed	103	2013-07-11	AFFIRMED
574	toledo	for long-felt need those attempting to solve problem need knowledge of prior art	103	2013-07-11	AFFIRMED
575	mostafazadeh, youman	recapture test	251	2013-07-15	AFFIRMED
576	gorman	test of obviousness whether prior art teachings taken as a whole would have made obvious	103	2013-07-16	AFFIRMED
577	steele	can't base 103 on speculative assumptions	103	2013-07-16	REVERSED
578	process control, raytheon	claim containing impossible limitation and means for accomplishing unattainable result invalid under either 101 or 112	112(1)/101	2013-07-16	AFFIRMED
579	leithem, kronig	PTAB rejection is only "new" when facts not found by examiner are relied on and appellant has not had chance to respond	fed cir	2013-07-22	AFFIRMED
580	renishaw	if several common meanings for claim term use patent disclosure	claim interpretation	2013-07-23	REVERSED
581	lister	to qualify as printed publication under 102 has to be sufficiently accessible to public	prior art	2013-07-23	REVERSED
582	gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao	position label's function given no patentable weight because a distinction discernable only to the human mind	103	2013-07-24	AFFIRMED
583	CLS	nothing in CLS except judgment has precedent swanson - in reexam burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence	101	2013-07-25	AFFIRMED
584	swanson	in reexam burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence	102	2013-07-25	AFFIRMED
585	hyatt, fiers, morse	single-means claims not permissable under 112(1)	112(1)	2013-07-25	AFFIRMED
586	turbocare	written description corollary is new matter prohibition 35 USC 132	112(1)	2013-07-29	REVERSED
587	droge, kubin, o'farrell	reasonable expectation of success needs sufficient predictability in the art	103	2013-07-30	REVERSED
588	harza	mere duplication of parts inapplicable when unexpected result	103	2013-07-31	REVERSED
589	lister, cronyn, klopfenstein, cordis, wyer, hall	to be publically accessible POSITA can locate it and PTO must prove	prior art	2013-08-01	REVERSED
590	riverwood	admitted prior art can be used for both anticipation and obviousness	103	2013-08-02	REVERSED
591	vogel	test for same invention is could one claim be literally infringed without infringing the other	double patenting	2013-08-06	REVERSED
592	brand	derivation shown by establishing prior conception and communication to another	103	2013-08-07	AFFIRMED
593	hoganas	patentee must draft clearly.if meaning of term different	112(2)	2013-08-08	AFFIRMED
594	mintz, transocean	for obviousness all four graham factors important, including secondary considerations, prima facie case not a conclusion	fed cir 103	2013-08-08	REVERSED
595	NTP	using patent in suit as guide through maze of prior art references is hindsight reconstruction	103	2013-08-09	REVERSED
596	Litton	specific finding on level of skill not required when prior art reflects it	103	2013-08-12	AFFIRMED
597	dinh-nguyen	pharmacological claims don't have to exclude inoperative substances	112(1)	2013-08-14	REVERSED
598	pfaff, atlanta, netscape	on sale bar needs commercial offer for sale and invention ready for patenting	prior art	2013-08-15	AFFIRMED
599	apple	obviousness is legal conclusion	103	2013-08-19	REVERSED
600	eicon, stumbo	claims are construed to give effect to all terms, no claim phrase is superfluous	claim interpretation	2013-08-20	REVERSED
601	lister	copyright registration insufficient evidence of public accessibility	prior art	2013-08-21	AFFIRMED
602	ferguson	machine includes every mechanical device that performs some function to produce a certain result	claim interpretation	2013-08-23	REVERSED
603	psystar	trade secret overcomes presumption of general right to inspect and copy public records and documents	prior art	2013-08-26	REVERSED
604	otto, young, rishoi	no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works	103	2013-08-27	REVERSED
605	mcgrew	same claim as in issued patent cannot be made in application unless made prior to one year from date patent granted	135(b) derivation	2013-08-27	AFFIRMED
606	gillis	claims that refer to other claims not necessarily dependent	claim interpretation	2013-08-28	AFFIRMED
607	typhoon touch	prior art structure can't be modified to perform required function	prior art	2013-08-29	AFFIRMED
608	crish, spada, best	when evidence allows reasonable conclusion claimed feature present in prior art, must prove not necessarily or inherently present	claim interpretation	2013-08-30	REVERSED
609	clearvalue, therasence, sanofi, schreiber, spada, bond	Examiner erred finding prior art described embodiment in way enabling POSITA to make invention	102	2013-09-03	REVERSED
610	elkay, pall corp., omega, spectrum, middleton, saunders	prosecution history estoppel and presecution disclaimer are distinct, but neither apply when claims have been omitted or materially altered	fed cir prosecution history estoppel	2013-09-05	REVERSED
611	titanium	where there are differences between reference disclosure and claim, rejection must be based on 103 not 102	103	2013-09-06	REVERSED
612	berenter, mannesmann	process comprising steps or elements (a) - (d), (a) defined by "consisting of" did not include other steps or elements	claim interpretation	2013-09-07	REVERSED
613	crish	where claim includes "at least a portion", "consists" held to limit only the "portion"	claim interpretation	2013-09-07	REVERSED
614	gurley	to teach away reference must discourage POSITA from following path or lead in a divergent direction	103	2013-09-10	REVERSED
615	alappat, ultramercial	claims requiring programs to carry out functions are structural, not intended use	101	2013-09-11	REVERSED
616	celeritas	even disparaged art can anticipate	102	2013-09-12	AFFIRMED
617	minton, texas instruments	adverbs in wherein or whereby clauses merely laudatory	claim interpretation	2013-09-13	AFFIRMED
618	takeda	POSITA needs a reason	103	2013-09-17	REVERSED
619	warner, sporck	examiner's mere speculation not sufficient for prima facie case of obviousness	103	2013-09-18	REVERSED
620	cortright	BRI can't conflict with meaning given to identical term in other patents from analogous art	claim interpretation	2013-09-19	REVERSED
621	Clinton	economics may motivate POSITA to choose least expensive alternative	103	2013-09-20	AFFIRMED
622	yeoman	in reissue examiner reasoning must distinguish between when added limitation is modified and added limitation eliminated entirely	251	2013-09-23	REVERSED
623	amgen1	mere fact that "about" permits some tolerance doesn't support rejection under 112(2) for indefiniteness	112(2)	2013-09-24	REVERSED
624	vaidyanathan	even after KSR examiner must still discuss reason a particular feature would have been obvious	103	2013-09-26	REVERSED
625	amgen3, general electric, Thorpe	old product not patentable even if made by new process	claim interpretation	2013-09-30	AFFIRMED
626	Einstein	needs mere reversal of working parts to not constitute invention not more	103	2013-10-01	REVERSED
627	ICON, morris	interpret recitation as broadly as the ordinary usage of the language and disclosure of spec allow	claim interpretation	2013-10-02	AFFIRMED
628	merck2, sakraida	unexpected 'synergistic' properties,must be an effect greater than the sum of the several effects taken separately.	103	2013-10-03	REVERSED
629	seachange	teaching away irrelevant to anticipation, but disclosure is	102	2013-10-04	REVERSED
630	eli lilly, vas-cath	written description question of fact does spec convey with reasonable clarity was in possession at filing date	112(1)	2013-10-07	AFFIRMED
631	dann	mere existence of differences not enough to establish non-obviousness	103	2013-10-09	AFFIRMED
632	venner, leapfrog	automating a manual activity is not invention	103	2013-10-10	AFFIRMED
633	Phillips	claims must be interpreted in light of spec	claim interpretation	2013-10-11	REVERSED
634	ratti	103 combination can't change basic principles under which primary reference operates	103	2013-10-16	REVERSED
635	skvorecz	BRI doesn't include legally incorrect interpretation, only an expedient not a rule	claim interpretation	2013-10-17	REVERSED
636	mraz, hockerson-halberstadt	if spec silent, drawings not to scale can't be relied on as prior art	102	2013-10-18	REVERSED
637	ratti	change in the basic principles of operation means scientific or technical principles under which invention operates	103	2013-10-21	AFFIRMED
638	petering	only if POSITA can at once envisage each member of a class does disclosure anticipate	102	2013-10-22	REVERSED
639	levy	inherent characteristic must necessarily flow from teachings of prior art	claim interpretation	2013-10-23	REVERSED
640	trintec, robertson	inherent anticipation means necessarily present not probably present in prior art	claim interpretation	2013-10-24	REVERSED
641	warner	103 must rest on factual basis	103	2013-10-28	REVERSED
642	S3	claim is not indefinite simply because it is difficult to understand without the spec	112(2)	2013-10-30	REVERSED
643	dystar	103 suggestion test requires consideration of common knowledge and common sense	103	2013-11-04	AFFIRMED
644	Andresen	102 prior art also available under 103, even applicant's own patented work	103	2013-11-05	AFFIRMED
645	hampel, burhans	order of performing steps must produce new and unexpected result to overcome 103	103	2013-11-06	AFFIRMED
646	ghuman	only when appellants clearly state in appeal brief some claims are not being pursued should they cancel them	appellate procedure	2013-11-07	REVERSED
647	all dental	an indefiniteness determination requires claim construction that after thorough attempt failed to resolve material ambiguity	112(2)	2013-11-13	REVERSED
648	beattie	merely establishing two prior arts different not enough for "teaching away" from combination	103	2013-11-14	AFFIRMED
649	depuy spine, fulton	to teach away prior art must 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation	103	2013-11-14	AFFIRMED
650	aller	obvious only if POSITA can discover workable ranges by routine experimentation	103	2013-11-15	REVERSED
651	preda	proper to take into account inferences POSITA reasonably expected to draw from prior art	103	2013-11-18	AFFIRMED
652	IXYS	breadth no reason to deny injunctive relief	fed cir	2013-11-19	REVERSED
653	woodruff, perricone, bristol-myers	claiming new benefit of old process not patentable	103	2013-11-20	AFFIRMED
654	keller	test for obviousness is what combined teachings of references would have suggested to POSITA	103	2013-11-21	AFFIRMED
655	hoffer	'whereby' clause cannot be ignored to change substance of invention	claim interpretation	2013-11-22	REVERSED
656	bicon, danly, stumbo	claim construction cannot be unreasonably broad so as to render phrases in claim superfluous	claim interpretation	2013-11-25	REVERSED
657	ultramercial, alappat	programming a computer creates a new machine	101	2013-11-26	AFFIRMED
658	johnson	the specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining	112(1)	2013-11-27	REVERSED
659	innova	different terms in claim reflect differentiation in meaning of those terms	claim interpretation	2013-11-27	REVERSED
660	turlay	anticipation cannot be predicated on ambiguous reference	102	2013-11-28	REVERSED
661	ferguson	"ordinary" and "customary" meaning of claim terms comes from use in written description and by POSITA	claim interpretation	2013-12-02	AFFIRMED
662	antor	prior art printed publication presumptively enabling barring any showing to the contrary	112(1)	2013-12-03	AFFIRMED
663	riverwood, nomiya, garfinkel	statements by applicant during prosecution identifying certain matter not the work of inventor as "prior art" is an admission	prior art	2013-12-04	AFFIRMED
664	wright	arguing about the age of references useless absent evidence the art tried and failed to solve the problem	103	2013-12-05	AFFIRMED
665	CyberSource, CLS, Dealertrack, Fort Properties	claim has to be drawn to a specific computer readable medium, rather than to the underlying method	101	2013-12-06	AFFIRMED
666	sebek	determination of optimum values prima facie obvious but optimum values outside suggested range may not be obvious	103	2013-12-09	REVERSED
667	fout, mayne	express suggestion to substitute one known equivalent for another not necessary to be obvious	103	2013-12-10	AFFIRMED
668	warner	in 103 examiner may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction	103	2013-12-12	REVERSED
669	Morris, kohno, dike, larson, clark, advanced cardiovascular	"integral" may cover more than a one-piece, unitary construction	claim interpretation	2013-12-13	AFFIRMED
670	case	precedent cannot establish facts	103	2013-12-14	REVERSED
671	einstein	mere reversal of essential working parts routine	103	2013-12-14	REVERSED
672	cyclobenzaprine, boehringer	little better evidence negating expectation of success than actual reports of failure	103	2013-12-17	REVERSED
673	ergo, telcordia	generic structural disclosure sufficient for "controller"	prior art	2013-12-18	REVERSED
674	typhoon, microprocessor	prior art structure has to be "capable of" performing the function without further programming	prior art	2013-12-18	REVERSED
675	lowry, bernhart, king	must functionally affect the operation of the memory or processor (if not then non-functional descriptive material)	claim interpretation	2013-12-19	AFFIRMED
676	grain processing	court can't use appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct invention from prior art	103	2013-12-20	REVERSED
677	warner	examiner may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction	103	2013-12-20	REVERSED
678	mewherter	just add "non-transitory" to "computer-readable medium" to overcome 101	101	2013-12-23	REVERSED
679	boon, bozek	if examiner establishes knowledge in the art burden on applicant to traverse to create reasonable doubt	103	2013-12-24	AFFIRMED
680	boehringer	"to receive" is merely intended use and does not limit the claim	claim interpretation	2013-12-26	AFFIRMED
681	gardiner, schreiber	apparatus claims patentability is shown in the structure not "use, function, or result thereof"	claim interpretation	2013-12-27	AFFIRMED
682	petering, bristol-myers	disclosure of genus may anticipate species even if species not recited	102	2013-12-30	AFFIRMED
683	monolithic, rambus	litigation misconduct and unprofessional behavoir enough to make case exceptional under 285	285	2013-12-30	VACATED
684	translogic, hyatt	BRI must be consistent with the specification	claim interpretation	2013-12-31	REVERSED
685	rexnord, cvi	"directly coupled" means "joined by immediate contact"	claim interpretation	2014-01-03	REVERSED
686	griffin, hoffer, minton	"wherein" "whereby" "thereby" clause given patentable weight depends on case specific facts	claim interpretation	2014-01-06	AFFIRMED
687	orthokinetics	a relative term can be definite	112(2)	2014-01-07	AFFIRMED
688	Morris	patented claims evaluated under a different standard than claims still subject to prosecution	claim interpretation	2014-01-07	AFFIRMED
689	zletz	uncertainties of claim scope removed as much as possible during administrative process	claim interpretation	2014-01-07	AFFIRMED
690	ksr	POSITA can pursue finite number of identified, predictable solutions to solve design need	103	2014-01-08	AFFIRMED
691	anhydrides	rules of grammar apply: referential words and phrases refer solely to last antecedent	claim interpretation	2014-01-09	AFFIRMED
692	de blauwe	Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight	103	2014-01-10	AFFIRMED
693	gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai	given label's function distinction "discernable only to the human mind"	claim interpretation	2014-01-13	AFFIRMED
694	agilent	inherency means POSITA would recognize reference unavoidably teaches property	112(2)	2014-01-14	REVERSED
695	function media, typhoon touch, finisar	in 112(6) spec must contain enuf descriptive text so POSITA knows means	112(2)	2014-01-14	REVERSED
696	sullivan, glaug	examiner must make prima facie case, burden shifts, appellant comes forward with evidence/argument	103	2014-01-15	REVERSED
697	swanson	prior art originally used as secondary ref in 103 is sufficient for SNQP when considered as a 102	SNQP reexam	2014-01-16	AFFIRMED
698	animal, santarus	negative limitations OK but spec must describe a reason to exclude the relevant function	claim interpretation	2014-01-17	AFFIRMED
699	deere, innova	can't import limitations from spec, claims not limited to specific embodiment, even if only one	claim interpretation	2014-01-20	VACATED AND REMANDED
700	hewlett-packard, roberts	system claim covers what system is, not what it does	claim interpretation	2014-01-20	VACATED AND REMANDED
701	paragon	can't construe non-functional terms to make infringement turn on their function	claim interpretation	2014-01-20	VACATED AND REMANDED
702	donaldson, ibormeith	with 112(6), BRI only so far as structure in spec	112(6) claim interpretation	2014-01-23	REVERSED
703	envirco, kempco, b. braun	for 112(6) if claim doesn't have sufficient structure, look to spec	112(6) claim interpretation	2014-01-23	REVERSED
704	encyclopaedia	to claim priority to foreign app have to properly cite it	prior art	2014-01-23	AFFIRMED
705	innovention, wyers, ksr klein bigio	for analogous art 2 steps, same field or reasonably pertinent to problem	prior art	2014-01-23	REVERSED
706	marzocchi	spec "presumptively accurate" examiner has burden of showing it is not	112	2014-01-24	REVERSED
707	bancorp	Patent eligibility under section 101 is an issue of law.	101	2014-01-27	AFFIRMED
708	karsten	anticipation requires lack of novelty, all claim elements and limitations arranged as in the claim	102	2014-01-27	REVERSED
709	perricone, net moneyin	for 102 not enough that discloses part of claim which POSITA might supplement to make whole	102	2014-01-28	REVERSED
710	braat, berg, eli lilly, basell, emert, goodman, fallaux	two tests for obviousness-type double patenting	obviousness-type double patenting	2014-01-29	AFFIRMED
711	inventio, CCS	if structure in claim not definite, then claim is means plus function. test is would POSITA say so.	112	2014-02-05	VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
712	inventio, trimed	use of 'means' triggers rebuttable presumption claim is 112(6)	112	2014-02-05	VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
713	personalized, CCS	if claim doesn't recite 'means' then presumed not to invoke 112(6)	112	2014-02-05	VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
714	katz interactive, IPXL, rembrandt	active method steps as part of an apparatus render claim indefinite under 112(b)	112	2014-02-06	REVERSED
715	morsa, antor media	if applicant challanges enablement of printed publication cited by examiner must review evidence	prior art	2014-02-07	REVERSED
716	bigio, chaganti	analogous art: same endeavor, if not, reasonably pertinent to problem inventor is involved with	prior art	2014-02-10	AFFIRMED
717	bell atlantic	examiner can't use extrinsic evidence to vary, expand, or limit claim language from how spec defines	claim interpretation	2014-02-11	AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
718	lintner	claim unpatentable if so broad it also reads on obvious subject matter	103	2014-02-12	REVERSED
719	carella	for known or used in this country means accessible to public, not for TSM (after KSR)	103	2014-02-17	AFFIRMED
720	dailey	change in shape or form may be within skill of POSITA	103	2014-02-17	AFFIRMED
721	KSR	does examiner provide reason with rationale underpinning for proposed combination?	103	2014-02-17	AFFIRMED
722	kao, soni	when secondary considerations are present, error not to consider them	103	2014-02-19	REVERSED
723	electromed, superguide	can't import limitations from embodiment in spec into a claim that are not part of the claim	claim interpretation	2014-02-20	AFFIRMED
724	phillips	can't confine claim to embodiments in spec	claim interpretation	2014-02-20	AFFIRMED
725	thorner	to act as own lexicographer, must clearly set forth definition other than plain and ordinary meaning	112	2014-02-21	AFFIRMED
726	boehringer	intended use will not limit scope of claim	claim interpretation	2014-02-21	AFFIRMED
727	vivid	only need to construe claim terms in controvesy, and only to extent to resolve it	claim interpretation	2014-02-21	AFFIRMED
728	interconnect	103 combination requires more than hindsight gleaned from invention itself	103	2014-02-24	REVERSED
729	jacoby	artisan must be presumed to know something apart from what references disclose	103	2014-02-25	AFFIRMED
730	allen eng'g, bell comm	preamble limiting when claim drafter uses both it and body of claim to define subject matter	claim interpretation	2014-02-25	REVERSED
731	antonie	exception to 'aller' rule, optimization of a parameter not recognized as being result-effective not obvious	103	2014-02-26	REVERSED
732	rolls-royce	obvious if POSITA, before and without knowledge, would have found it easily predictable and achievable variation of prior art	103	2014-02-27	AFFIRMED
733	oatey, verizon	claim interpretation cannot exclude example disclosed in spec	claim interpretation	2014-03-03	REVERSED
734	harris	unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with protection sought by claim	103	2014-03-04	AFFIRMED
735	montgomery	inherent result must inevitably result from disclosed steps	102	2014-03-05	REVERSED
736	ethicon	preponderance of the evidence is general evidentiary standard for proceedings before USPTO	appellate procedure	2014-03-06	REVERSED
737	superguide	use spec to understand claim language but not to import limitation not part of claim	claim interpretation	2014-03-07	AFFIRMED
738	aller	1) general conditions of claim must be disclosed in prior art 2) discovery of range routine	103	2014-03-10	REVERSED
739	boesch	routine experimentation to find optimum concentration of components of known compound obvious	103	2014-03-12	AFFIRMED
740	rouffet	entitled to a patent where no prima facie case of obviousness	103	2014-03-13	REVERSED
741	miller	breadth is not indefiniteness	112	2014-03-14	REVERSED
742	sebek	optimal values outside of a recognized range may be not obvious	103	2014-03-17	REVERSED
743	gore	no legally recognizable "gist" to the invention	claim interpretation	2014-03-18	REVERSED
744	woodruff	must show particular range critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to prior art range	103	2014-03-19	AFFIRMED
745	thrift	103 rejection when a second reference identifies the benefits of adding a feature to the primary reference,	103	2014-03-20	AFFIRMED
746	self	Arguments in support of patentability must be based on claim limitations.	claim interpretation	2014-03-20	AFFIRMED
747	paulsen	inventor must set out uncommon definition in disclosure to give POSITA notice	claim interpretation	2014-03-21	AFFIRMED
748	warner, takeda	POSITA obvious to try: “good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.”	103	2014-03-24	REVERSED
749	IPXL, H-W, katz interactive	method steps recited in an apparatus claim make it indefinite	112	2014-03-24	REVERSED
750	preda	in considering disclosure, proper for POSITA to take into account inferences drawn therefrom	claim interpretation	2014-03-24	AFFIRMED
751	kessler	fills gap between claim and issue preclusion allowing even third parties to infringe post-final judgment	fed cir	2014-03-26	AFFIRMED
752	flo healthcare	claim term followed by functional language devoid of structure is in means-plus-function format	112	2014-03-27	REVERSED
753	huang, cable, baxter travenol	number of units sold provides a very weak showing of commercial success,	103	2014-03-28	AFFIRMED
754	mars	"comprising" and "including" are synonymous	claim interpretation	2014-04-02	AFFIRMED
755	best	sound basis for believing products of applicant and prior art are the same, applicant has burden to show not	prior art	2014-04-03	AFFIRMED
756	kloster	absence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation	102	2014-04-07	REVERSED
757	HTC	modifiers are presumed to modify the antecedent noun	claim interpretation	2014-04-08	AFFIRMED
758	boehringer	an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim	claim interpretation	2014-04-09	AFFIRMED
759	eplus	plain and ordinary meaning of "determing" is prompting, checking	claim interpretation	2014-04-10	AFFIRMED
760	dystar	does POSITA possess knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.	103	2014-04-11	AFFIRMED
761	cheese systems	objective evidence of secondary considerations operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.	103	2014-04-14	AFFIRMED
762	leapfrog, ksr	must show combination uniquely challenging or difficult for POSITA	103	2014-04-14	AFFIRMED
763	nat'l steel, fulton	that two inventions designed to resolve different problems not enough for teaching away	103	2014-04-14	AFFIRMED
764	wilson	All words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter.	103	2014-04-15	REVERSED
765	ICON	analogous art must logically have commended itself to inventor's attention considering his problem	103	2014-04-16	REVERSED
766	york prod.	substantially means considerable in . . . extent, largely but not wholly that which is specified	claim interpretation	2014-04-17	AFFIRMED
767	steele	A rejection should not be based on "speculations and assumptions."	claim interpretation	2014-04-21	REVERSED
768	belkin	scope of reexamination limited to those issues for which the Examiner has determined SNQ arises.	SNQ	2014-04-23	AFFIRMED-IN-PART
769	KSR	factual findings required to apply enumerated rationales from MPEP 2143	103	2014-04-25	REVERSED
770	bose	inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis	claim interpretation	2014-04-28	REVERSED
771	bancorp	if dependent claim adds particular limitation presumption is the limitation not in the independent claim.	claim interpretation	2014-04-29	GRANTED
772	liebel-flarsheim	doctrine of claim differentiation strong where dependent claim feature read into independent claim	claim interpretation	2014-04-29	GRANTED
773	deere, ecolab, andrew corp.	"about," "substantially," "approximately" don't automatically render claim indefinite.	112	2014-05-02	REVERSED
774	leapfrog	have to show combination was "uniquely challenging or difficult" for POSITA	103	2014-05-06	AFFIRMED
775	NTP	deciding whether a patent application satisfies 112 is a distinct and separate analysis from 120.	112	2014-05-07	REVERSED
776	pfizer	can't rewrite claims to preserve validity, dependent claim is invalid if fails to specify further limitation	claim interpretation	2014-05-08	AFFIRMED
777	microsoft	Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment. http://t.co/QyYivpGBdu	101	2014-05-09	AFFIRMED
778	thorner, CCS, helmsderfer, butamax	to act as own lexicographer must clearly express intent to redefine claim term	claim interpretation	2014-05-12	AFFIRMED-IN-PART
779	chicago bd,, CAE	the use of different terms in the claims connotes different meanings. http://t.co/QyYivpGBdu	claim interpretation	2014-05-14	REVERSED
780	rohm and hass	Nothing requires a finder of fact to credit inadequately explained testimony.	claim interpretation	2014-05-15	AFFIRMED
781	suitco	BRI coupled with the term "comprising" does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims	claim interpretation	2014-05-16	REVERSED
782	callicrate, KX	background section OK for 112(1) enablement	112	2014-05-19	REVERSED
783	bigio, klein	analogous art (1) same field of endeavor or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem	103	2014-05-20	REVERSED
784	king2, sernaker	dependent claims not argued separately stand or fall with claims from which they depend	claim interpretation	2014-05-22	AFFIRMED-IN-PART
785	scanner, KCJ	'a' or 'an' means 'one or more' unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements	claim interpretation	2014-05-23	REVERSED
786	pitney bowes	intended use preamble of no significance if body of claim fully sets forth complete invention	claim interpretation	2014-05-26	AFFIRMED-IN-PART
787	mraz, jockmus, aslanian	drawings can anticipate but must show POSITA all claimed features and how put together	102	2014-05-28	REVERSED
788	ashland oil	expert opinion probative value 1. interest in outcome 2. factual support 3. strength of opposing view	claim interpretation	2014-05-29	AFFIRMED
789	edge	may be unobvious to omit element while retaining its function	103	2014-06-04	REVERSED
790	rambus, abbott diabetes	statement in a spec that claim term "refers to" something can serve as a limitation	claim interpretation	2014-06-05	AFFIRMED
791	winner int'l, medichem	simultaneous advantages and disadvantages doesn't obviate motivation to combine	103	2014-06-06	AFFIRMED
792	vaeck	reasonable expectation that references could be combined successfully is necessary part of a prima facie case	103	2014-06-09	REVERSED
793	giannelli	saying a prior art could perform as claimed without saying why obvious to modify isn't prima facie case	103	2014-06-10	REVERSED
794	carnegie	existence of an apparatus does not render unpatentable all the possible methods to which it may be adapted	103	2014-06-11	REVERSED
795	ricoh	invention may be novel as to prior art without teaching away from combining prior art with invention	103	2014-06-12	AFFIRMED
796		USPTO 101 training - just add "non-transitory" to overcome 101	101	2014-06-13	REVERSED
797	harris	Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact.	103	2014-06-16	AFFIRMED
798	suffolk, SRI	posting to newsgroup is printed publication under 102, but posting to ftp server without more isn't	prior art	2014-06-17	AFFIRMED
799	velander, ashland oil	statements do not become facts merely because they are set forth in declarations	claim interpretation	2014-06-19	AFFIRMED
800	farrenkopf, orthopedic	technological incompatibility relevant for arguing against combination, not economic reasons	103	2014-06-23	AFFIRMED
801	aller, kahn	discovery of optimum range only obvious when general conditions of claim disclosed in prior art	103	2014-06-24	REVERSED
802	packard	satisfactory resp to indefiniteness rejection - modify lang, provide separate def or explan why not unclear	112	2014-06-25	REVERSED
803	ICON, clay	For a reference to be reasonably pertinent, it must logically have commended itself to an inventor	prior art	2014-06-26	REVERSED
804	Q.I. Press, Ariad	test for written description is POSITA must clearly recognize inventor invented what is claimed	112	2014-06-27	REVERSED
805	cordis	The phrase "to form" is not intrinsically limiting.	claim interpretation	2014-06-30	REVERSED
806	nelson	Tests showing pharmacological activity may show a practical utility even though no specific therapeutic use.	101	2014-07-02	REVERSED
807	crown packaging	Inherent anticipation requires more than presence of an unrecognized claimed de minimis quantity	102	2014-07-02	REVERSED
808	santarus, omega	negative limitations in claims need express disclaimer or independent lexicography in spec	claim interpretation	2014-07-14	AFFIRMED
809	uship, ekchian	applicant's remarks submitted with an [IDS] can be the basis for limiting claim scope.	claim interpretation	2014-07-15	AFFIRMED
810	geisler, gurley	103 prima facie can be rebutted if can show that the art in any material respect taught away	103	2014-07-16	REVERSED
811	ricoh	to teach away ref would lead POSITA in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant	103	2014-07-17	REVERSED
812	aevoe, motorola	for fed jurisdiction did injunction actually alter[.] the legal relationship between the parties.	fed cir	2014-07-18	AFFIRMED
813	gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao	non-functional descriptive material is given no patentable weight	claim interpretation	2014-07-21	AFFIRMED
814	alice	fundamental concepts, by themselves, are ineligible abstract ideas	101	2014-07-22	AFFIRMED
815	warner	deficiency in factual basis for legal conclusion of obviousness resolved in favor of applicant	103	2014-07-22	REVERSED
816	robertson	three separate means not anticipated by two means where one of two argued to meet two of three	102	2014-07-23	REVERSED
817	lantech	single conveyor not enough when claim requires two conveyors	103	2014-07-23	REVERSED
818	reiffin, vas-cath, union oil, lockwood, gosteli, edwards, lukach	written description requirement	112	2014-07-24	AFFIRMED
819	kemco, harris, medical instrumentation	the term "means" requires structure, algorithm if computer-implemented	112	2014-07-25	AFFIRMED
820	KSR, patel	ranges approaching each other enough of a reason to reject where end points approximate	103	2014-07-28	AFFIRMED
821	robertson	two snaps don't inherently anticipate disposable diapers requiring three snaps	102	2014-07-29	REVERSED
822	playtex	substantially flattened can be curved, but not at a 90 degree angle	claim interpretation	2014-07-29	REVERSED
823	caveney	preponderance of the evidence must show nonpatentability	103	2014-07-30	REVERSED
824	porter	absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence	claim interpretation	2014-07-30	REVERSED
825	bancorp	computing, monitoring, signaling, notifying do not confer patent eligibility to claims	101	2014-07-31	AFFIRMED
826	therasense, schering, continental can	Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.	102	2014-07-31	REVERSED
827	chester	prima facie burden not met when rejection so uninformative can't recognize grounds	103	2014-07-31	REVERSED
828	sanofi-aventis, pozen	"obvious to try" does not apply if combination has longer-lasting efficacy than either alone	103	2014-08-04	AFFIRMED
829	kahn	103 rejections need articulated reasoning with rational underpinning	103	2014-08-05	REVERSED
830	montgomery, MEHL	keystone of inherency is inevitability, it can't be established by probabilities or possibilities	102	2014-08-06	REVERSED
831	halliburton, nautilus	claims must inform POSITA about scope, applicant in best position to resolve ambiguities	112	2014-08-06	AFFIRMED
832	cheese systems	secondary considerations are a beneficial check on hindsight	103	2014-08-07	AFFIRMED
833	kerkhoven	combining two compositions to form third used for same purpose obvious	103	2014-08-07	AFFIRMED
834	KCJ, harari	comprising a means one or more, unless claim language indicates a means one and only one	claim interpretation	2014-08-08	AFFIRMED
835	merck3	A claim construction that gives meaning to all terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.	claim interpretation	2014-08-11	REVERSED
836	cortright	BRI must be consistent with one POSITA would reach	claim interpretation	2014-08-12	REVERSED
837	intergraph, ormco, gould	"law of the case" doctrine	fed cir	2014-08-12	AFFIRMED
838	merck, susi	even if prior art genus huge, if discloses species, used for same purpose as applicant, then obvious	103	2014-08-13	AFFIRMED
839	perricone	anticipation: single prior art that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim	102	2014-08-14	AFFIRMED
840	otsuka, takeda, altana	103 in chemical arts: is it a lead compound?, reasonable expectation of success to modify it	103	2014-08-15	REVERSED
841	verdegaal	A claim is anticipated only if each element is found, either express or inherent, in a single prior art	102	2014-08-18	REVERSED
842	institut pasteur	knowledge of the goal does not render its achievement obvious	103	2014-08-18	REVERSED
843	bristol-myers, continental can, kansas jack, goodyear dental	no req. only successful product for commercial success	103	2014-08-19	REVERSED
844	Phillips	ordinary meaning of claim term is meaning POSITA would have at time of invention	claim interpretation	2014-08-19	REVERSED
845	keller	The test for obviousness is not whether secondary reference may be incorporated into primary reference	103	2014-08-20	REVERSED
846	datamize, musgrave	step requiring subjective judgment renders claim indefinite	112	2014-08-20	AFFIRMED
847	Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace	different words in separate claims presumed different meaning, esp. in dependent claims	claim interpretation	2014-08-20	AFFIRMED
848	alice	fundamental concepts, by themselves, are ineligible abstract ideas.	101	2014-08-21	AFFIRMED
849	bancorp	A claim reciting an abstract idea does not become eligible merely by adding the words apply it.	101	2014-08-21	AFFIRMED
850	applied materials, aller	103 affirmed when no indication obtaining claimed dimensions beyond POSITA capabilities	103	2014-08-22	AFFIRMED
851	cybersettle	use of BRI in construing conditional steps in a method claim in accord with Fed Cir	claim interpretation	2014-08-22	AFFIRMED
852	boon	adequate traverse must create reasonable doubt regarding notice of what is well known to POSITA	103	2014-08-25	REVERSED
853	nautilus, energizer holdings, porter	if scope of claim reasonably ascertainable by POSITA, then not indefinite	112	2014-08-26	REVERSED
854	chitayat	arguments based on mere measurement of the drawings [are] of little value.	prior art	2014-08-26	REVERSED
855	nerwin	no per se rule of obviousness	103	2014-08-27
856	thompson	economic factors alone may provide motivation for the proposed combination	103	2014-08-29	AFFIRMED
857	smithkline, gardner	breadth is not indefiniteness	112	2014-08-29	REVERSED
858	lowry	informational content of non-functional descriptive material not entitled to weight in patentability analysis	claim interpretation	2014-09-02	AFFIRMED
859	ahlert	notice of facts beyond the record capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration so as to defy dispute	claim interpretation	2014-09-03	AFFIRMED
860	best, geisler	if functional limitation may be inherent applicant must rebut with factual evidence	claim interpretation	2014-09-03	AFFIRMED
861	oatey	We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.	claim interpretation	2014-09-04	AFFIRMED
862	orthopedic	if features of one reference cannot be combined into structure of the other may indicate nonobvious	103	2014-09-05	REVERSED
863	rodime	112(6) "means for" language overcome if no corresponding function or sufficient structure recited in claim	112	2014-09-09	REVERSED
864	warner, sporck	The Examiner's mere speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness.	103	2014-09-10	REVERSED
865	seachange	teaching away is irrelevant to anticipation	102	2014-09-11	AFFIRMED
866	gordon	if modification renders prior art unsatisfactory for intended purpose, no suggestion or motivation	103	2014-09-11	REVERSED
867	tec air, haruna	A reference teaches away when POSITA, upon reading it . . . would be led in a direction divergent	103	2014-09-11	REVERSED
868	bager	Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.	102	2014-09-12	AFFIRMED
869	warner	precise language of 102 places burden of proof on Patent Office	102	2014-09-15	REVERSED
870	wilson	All words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter	103	2014-09-15	REVERSED
871	o'farrell	For obviousness under 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.	103	2014-09-16	AFFIRMED
872	randall mfg	Patent Owner entitled to defend Examiner's decision to reject or not on any ground presented in record	reexam	2014-09-17	REVERSED
873	minerals, wands, vaeck	enablement question of law based on facts: need undue experimentation to practice invention?	112	2014-09-18	REVERSED
874	wertheim	'at least' has no upper limit so indefinite	112	2014-09-18	AFFIRMED
875	perricone	prior art must actually disclose invention, not just be inherently capable	102	2014-09-19	REVERSED
876	minton, hoffer, griffin	when whereby clause states a condition material to patentability, it cannot be ignored	claim interpretation	2014-09-19	REVERSED
877	kollman	Synergism, in and of itself, is not conclusive of unobviousness in that synergism might be expected.	103	2014-09-22	AFFIRMED
878	kunzmann	examiner's findings not challenged accepted as facts.	claim interpretation	2014-09-22	AFFIRMED
879	labounty, dwight & lloyd	use of prior art irrelevant, the statute authorizes patenting of machines not their uses.	prior art	2014-09-22	AFFIRMED
880	myers, jacoby, gorman	ommission is preferred, so reliance on a large no. of refs does not weigh against obviousness	103	2014-09-23	AFFIRMED
881	sensonics	examiner cannot use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction	103	2014-09-23	REVERSED
882	aristocrat	written description must disclose algorithm if means-plus-function limitation	112	2014-09-24	AFFIRMED	1
883	lakkala	processor configured to perform various functions is a means-plus-function limitation	112	2014-09-24	AFFIRMED	2
884	mass. inst. of tech.	word 'means' not included than rebuttable presumption that not means-plus-function limitation	112	2014-09-24	AFFIRMED	3
885	rouffet	absence of prima facie case of obviousness, if applicant complies with statutory req. entitled to a patent	103	2014-09-26	REVERSED	4
886	Boehringer	an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim	claim interpretation	2014-09-28	AFFIRMED	5
887	hewlett-packard	Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.	claim interpretation	2014-09-28	AFFIRMED	6
888	schreiber	apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function	prior art	2014-09-28	AFFIRMED	7
889	fritch, gordon	mere fact prior art may be modified does not make it obvious unless prior art suggested it	103	2014-10-01	REVERSED	8
890	self	arguments not based on limitations appearing in the claims fail from the outset.	claim interpretation	2014-10-01	AFFIRMED	9
891	fessmann	burden of proof for prima facie case of obviousness in product by process claim lower	103	2014-10-02	AFFIRMED	10
892	KCJ, harari	a' means 'one or more' unless claim language and spec indicate 'a' means 'one and only one'	claim interpretation	2014-10-02	REVERSED	11
893	vehicular	comprising means I claim at least what follows and potentially more	claim interpretation	2014-10-02	REVERSED	12
894	de blauwe	Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight.	claim interpretation	2014-10-06	AFFIRMED	13
895	chore-time	if patents and prior art easily understandable, one cannot argue an unnecessary fact material to POSITA	prior art	2014-10-07	AFFIRMED	14
896	schaumann	prior art can anticipate even though it describes claimed subject matter using different terms	prior art	2014-10-08	AFFIRMED	15
897	digitech	except process claims, all eligible subject matter categories must exist in some physical or tangible form	101	2014-10-12	AFFIRMED	16
898	dill	evidence to rebut prima facie case of obviousness must be commensurate in scope with claim	103	2014-10-14	AFFIRMED	17
899	dilnot	addition of a method step in a product claim cannot impart patentability to an old product	103	2014-10-14	AFFIRMED	18
900	b. braun	corresponding structure only if spec or prosecution history clearly links or associates it. quid pro quo	112	2014-10-15	REVERSED	19
901	harris	computer-implemented 112(6) corresponding structure is algorithm	112	2014-10-15	REVERSED	20
902	medical inst	corresponding structure in spec with clear linkage for 112(6)	112	2014-10-15	REVERSED	21
903	fulton	for prior art to teach away must discredit solution claimed, not just disclose different solution	103	2014-10-19	AFFIRMED	22
904	o'farrell, medichem	reasonable expectation 103 comb. would yield successfully functioning device question of fact	103	2014-10-20	REVERSED	23
905	dill, lindner	commensurate in scope (with claims) means reasonable basis untested embodiments behave in same manner	103	2014-10-23	AFFIRMED	24
906	comaper	if spec assigns or suggests to POSITA scope or definition of claim term not OK to consult dictionary	claim interpretation	2014-10-26	REVERSED	25
907	trintec, robertson, oelrich	inherent anticipation requires missing descriptive material be necessarily present	102	2014-10-27	REVERSED	27
908	dailey, gal	change in form or shape obvious design choice, unless achieves different purpose	103	2014-10-27	AFFIRMED	26
909	dann	mere existence of differences not enough to establish nonobviuosness, must render unobvious to POSITA	103	2014-10-28	AFFIRMED	28
910	janakiraman, ormco, muchmore	if narrow dependent claims are obvious, so are broader independent claims	103	2014-10-28	AFFIRMED	29
911	keller	test for obviousness is what combined teachings would have suggested to POSITA	103	2014-10-29	REVERSED	30
912	KSR, kahn	103 rejections need articulated reasoning with rational underpinning	103	2014-10-29	REVERSED	31
913	IPXL	claim that recites both a system and a method is indefinite because cannot tell when infringement occurs	112(2)	2014-11-03	AFFIRMED	32
914	barbed wire, cyclobenzaprine, tiffin, artsana, murata	long-felt need and commercial success impact obviousness	103	2014-11-04	AFFIRMED	33
915	nautilus, orthokinetics	indefinite if fails to inform POSITA with reasonable certainty scope of invention.	112(2)	2014-11-04	AFFIRMED	34
916	applied materials, aller, antonie	discovering optimum, workable ranges inventive if not result-effective variables	103	2014-11-05	REVERSED	35
917	thorpe	patentability doesn't depend on method of production	102	2014-11-06	AFFIRMED	38
918	baxter travenol	unexpected results must be compared to closest art	103	2014-11-06	AFFIRMED	36
919	merck	non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually	103	2014-11-06	AFFIRMED	37
920	texas instruments	a clause that merely states the result of a limitation adds nothing to patentability of a claim	claim interpretation	2014-11-07	AFFIRMED	39
921	cruciferous	if prior art necessarily functions (inherent) in accordance with claimed limitations it anticipates.	102	2014-11-10	REVERSED	40
922	robertson	Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.	102	2014-11-10	REVERSED	41
923	gurley	known composition doesn't become patentable because described as somewhat inferior to another for same use	103	2014-11-11	AFFIRMED	42
924	ricoh, fulton	to teach away reference must discourage or lead POSITA in divergent direction	103	2014-11-11	AFFIRMED	43
925	chu	"obvious design choice" precluded where claimed structure and function it performs different from prior art	103	2014-11-13	REVERSED	44
926	rose	the size of the article under consideration ... is not ordinarily a matter of invention.	103	2014-11-13	REVERSED	45
927	warner	103 rejection must rest on factual basis, no hindsight reconstruction and all facts must be considered.	103	2014-11-14	REVERSED	46
928	pentec	commercial success may be attributable to advertising and position as market leader before the introduction of the patented product	103	2014-11-17	AFFIRMED	47
929	remark, demaco	merely assering commercial success of article embodying invention sold by someone else insufficient.	103	2014-11-17	AFFIRMED	48
930	baxter travenol	extrinsic evidence may be used to explain but not expand meaning of ref relied on for anticipation	102	2014-11-18	REVERSED	49
931	continental can	where reference is silent about asserted inherent characteristic, must be necessarily present	102	2014-11-18	REVERSED	50
932	kloster	absence of any claimed element negates anticipation	102	2014-11-18	REVERSED	51
933	schreiber	to anticipate prior art has to disclose every limitation either explicitly or inherently	102	2014-11-18	REVERSED	52
934	therasense	inherency cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities	102	2014-11-18	REVERSED	53
935	wyers	copying requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product	103	2014-11-18	REVERSED	54
936	impax	102 prior art proof of efficacy not required for enablement just sufficient for POSITA to carry out invention	102	2014-11-19	AFFIRMED	55
937	novo	in order to anticipate prior art must be enabling, but not as to 'use' but only 'suggestions' to POSITA	102	2014-11-19	AFFIRMED	56
938	hiniker	proffered facts must be commensurate with claim scope	103	2014-11-20	AFFIRMED	57
939	kao	[i]nforming a patient about the benefits of a drug in no way transforms the process of taking the drug	103	2014-11-20	AFFIRMED	58
940	merck	"obvious to try" rejected when multitude of effective combinations and no particular formulation less obvious	103	2014-11-21	REVERSED	59
941	alice	if abstract idea present in claim do limitations include "significantly more" when recited with abstract idea	101	2014-11-24	AFFIRMED	60
942	cohn	inconsistent use of terms can cause clear claim to become unclear when read in light of spec	112(2)	2014-11-24	AFFIRMED	61
943	hammack	claims that require elaborate explanations extraneous to spec are indefinite	112(2)	2014-11-24	AFFIRMED	62
944	packard	claims must be cast in clear terms	112(2)	2014-11-24	AFFIRMED	63
945	Phillips	spec single best guide to determining meaning of claims	112(2)	2014-11-24	AFFIRMED	64
946	donaldson, kemco	112(6) prior art equivalence means perf. same function in substantially same way with same result	112(6)	2014-11-26	REVERSED	65
947	mouttet	Obviousness is determined by considering what combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a routineer.	103	2014-11-27	AFFIRMED	66
948	oakley	Claim construction is a necessary predicate to an obviousness determination.	103	2014-11-27	REVERSED	67
949	alice, mayo, ultramercial	for 101 if claims directed to abstract idea, need more than simply add words 'apply it'	101	2014-11-30	AFFIRMED	68
950	schreiber, giannelli	popcorn machine and rowing machine, prior art must be capable of performing functional limitation, and not teach away	103	2014-12-02	REVERSED	69
951	EWP	J.Rich A reference must be considered for everything it teaches, not limited to invention it is describing	prior art	2014-12-03	AFFIRMED	70
952	gulack, ngai	nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention	claim interpretation	2014-12-04	AFFIRMED	71
953	lowry, curry, mathias	computer-related data structures not providing increased efficiency in computer operations nonfunctional descr. mat.	claim interpretation	2014-12-04	AFFIRMED	72
954	e-pass	unless acting as lexicographer, limitations appearing in spec not read into claims	claim interpretation	2014-12-05	AFFIRMED	73
955	planet bingo	invalid under 101 even though required a computer cpu memory terminal printer and video screen	101	2014-12-08	AFFIRMED	74
956	sneed, orthopedic, andersen, nievelt	not necessary prior art be physically combinable	103	2014-12-08	AFFIRMED	75
957	wrigley	combination of known components resulting in an effect greater than the predicted additive effect may be nonobviousness	103	2014-12-09	REVERSED	77
958	seattle box	whether 'substantially equal' is indefinite depends on spec	112(2)	2014-12-09	AFFIRMED	76
959	prima tek	claim terms take on plain, ordinary and accustomed meaning unless explicit special definition clearly set forth	claim interpretation	2014-12-10	AFFIRMED	78
960	baird, jones, merck	fact that claimed compound may be encompassed by disclosed generic formula does not by itself render it obvious.	103	2014-12-11	REVERSED	79
961	williamson	"module" not means-plus-function	112(6)	2014-12-11	REVERSED	80
962	medichem, gurley	teach away' means line of development flowing from prior art unlikely to be productive of result sought by applicant	103	2014-12-16	REVERSED	81
963	scientific plastic, clay, innovention toys	analogous art two prongs (1) same field of endeavor (2) if not, reas. pertinent to part. prob.	103	2014-12-16	AFFIRMED	82
964	swinehart, par pharmaceutical, oelrich	newly discovered inherent property not enuf to distinguish prior art, in 103 must be natural result	102	2014-12-17	AFFIRMED	85
965	kemps	motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of applicant to establish obviousness.	103	2014-12-17	AFFIRMED	83
966	lear siegler	artisan not compelled to blindly follow teaching of one prior art over another	103	2014-12-17	AFFIRMED	84
967	mayne	An examination for unexpected results is a factual, evidentiary inquiry	103	2014-12-18	REVERSED	86
968	nomiya	finding source of problem may be patentable even if once found remedy obvious	103	2014-12-18	REVERSED	87
969	typhoon touch, vizio	programming or structure associated with functional language must be present to meet claim limitation	112(2)/112(6)	2014-12-19	REVERSED	88
970	IPXL, lyell	can't mix statutory classes of invention: unsure if contributory infringement when buyer performs claimed method of use	112(2)	2014-12-22	AFFIRMED	89
971	grams	The presence of a physical step in the claim to derive data for the algorithm will not render the claim statutory.	101	2014-12-23	AFFIRMED	90
972	research corp	The incorporation of algorithms and formulas does not prevent patent eligibility	101	2014-12-23	AFFIRMED	92
973	par pharmaceutical, rijckaert	inherency in 103 context must be carefully circumscribed, mere fact may result not enough	102	2014-12-23	REVERSED	91
974	takeda	evidence of correlation for the results between different measuring techniques enough to overcome 112(2) indefiniteness	112(2)	2014-12-30	REVERSED	93
975	bayer, wellman, engel	best mode two things: subjective, was there a best mode + objective, did inventor conceal	112(1)	2014-12-31	REVERSED	94
976	NTP, hansgirg, oelrich	inherency may not established by probabilities or possibilities	102	2015-01-02	REVERSED	95
977	Arkley	no picking and choosing in anticipation rejection	102	2015-01-05	REVERSED	96
978	NetMoneyIN	for anticipation all elements of the claim within four corners of the prior art ref arranged as in the claim	102	2015-01-05	REVERSED	97
979	NTP	anticipation each and every claim limitation explicitly or inherently	102	2015-01-05	REVERSED	98
980	self	Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability	claim interpretation	2015-01-05	AFFIRMED	99
981	continental can, oelrich	for inherency missing descriptive matter must be necessarily present, mere fact may result not enough	102	2015-01-07	REVERSED	100
982	alice, mayo	is claim directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea, do elements of claim transform nature of claim into patent-eligible application	101	2015-01-08	AFFIRMED	101
983	cortright	BRI must be consistent with the one POSITA would reach	claim interpretation	2015-01-08	REVERSED	102
984	mullin, herbert	reference that describes intermediate of structure can be prior art	prior art	2015-01-09	AFFIRMED	103
985	OSRAM	how POSITA understands relative size of a genus or species in particular technology is of critical importance	102	2015-01-11	AFFIRMED	104
986	freeman, medtronic	test for broadening reissue is whether it would not have infringed original patent	314 reexam	2015-01-13	AFFIRMED	105
987	deminski, wood, oetiker	if prior art not in field then must be reasonably pertinent ie common sense POSITA wld look there	prior art	2015-01-14	AFFIRMED	106
988	arkley	no picking, choosing, and combining not directly related disclosures in 102	102	2015-01-15	REVERSED	107
989	Phillips, vitronics	dictionary def ok as long as doesn't contradict def in spec	claim interpretation	2015-01-16	AFFIRMED-IN-PART	108
990	galderma	mere qualifying remark in prior art not enough to lead POSITA in divergent direction for teaching away	prior art	2015-01-19	AFFIRMED	109
991	gordon	for 103 fact prior art could be modified not enough, unless suggestion of desirability of modification	prior art	2015-01-19	REVERSED	110
992	Playtex, york prod., amhil	words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’ are descriptive terms ‘commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter; “Substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified.	claim interpretation	2015-01-21	AFFIRMED	111
993	typhoon touch	typhoon touch - “capable of” test requires prior art structure capable of performing function w/o further programming	prior art	2015-01-22	REVERSED	112
994	hampel, burhans	order of steps doesn't matter unless new or unexpected results	103	2015-01-23	AFFIRMED	114
995	baker hughes	can't adopt claim construction beyond what is reasonable in light of totality of written description	claim interpretation	2015-01-23	REVERSED	113
996	par pharmaceutical, oelrich	for 103 inherent only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art	claim interpretation	2015-01-26	REVERSED	115
997	NTP	inventor’s testimony of constructive reduction to practice must be corroborated by evidence	prior art	2015-01-27	AFFIRMED	116
998	monarch knitting	Defining the problem in terms of its solution reveals improper hindsight in the selection of the prior art relevant to obviousness	103	2015-01-28	REVERSED	117
999	larson	not obvious if removal of a structure from prior art would undermine sole stated purpose of embodiment	103	2015-01-30	REVERSED	118
1000	digitech	data in ethereal, non-physical form doesn't fall under any of the eligible subject matter categories under 101	101	2015-02-02	AFFIRMED	119
1001	telemac, schering	inherent anticipation doesn't require recognition in prior art, and recourse to extrinsic evidence is proper	102	2015-02-02	REVERSED	120
1002	lemin	nothing unobvious in choosing 'some' among 'many' indiscriminanately.	103	2015-02-03	AFFIRMED	121
1003	baxter travenol	extrinsic evidence ok to explain but not expand on meaning of ref in 102	102	2015-02-04	REVERSED	123
1004	NetMoneyIN	differences between prior art and claimed invention invoke 103, not 102	103	2015-02-04	REVERSED	124
1005	atmel	corresponding structure in means-plus-function must be disclosed in written description	112	2015-02-04	AFFIRMED	122
1006	bond	during examination claims given BRI and read as POSITA would in light of spec	claim interpretation	2015-02-05	REVERSED	125
1007	zletz	words of claim given plain meaning unless inconsistent with spec	claim interpretation	2015-02-05	REVERSED	126
1008	morris	absent express def in spec, tho applicant has own interpretation PTO can point to other sources that support it's own interpretation	claim interpretation	2015-02-06	AFFIRMED	127
1009	wright	100 year old patent OK for 103 combination	prior art	2015-02-06	AFFIRMED	128
1010	alton	112(1) written description burden on examiner to present evidence why POSITA wouldn't recognize invention disclosed in claims	112	2015-02-09	REVERSED	129
1011	exxon chem, teva, markman, abbott diabetes	PTAB's obligation to determine meaning of claims is analogous to that of district and appeals court judges	claim interpretation	2015-02-10	AFFIRMED	130
1012	koito	if amended material inherently in the original spec, not new matter	112	2015-02-11	REVERSED	131
1013	cross, nelson	tests evidencing pharmacological activity may manifest practical utility even tho no theraputic use because will marshall resources	101	2015-02-12	REVERSED	132
1014	titanium	if range covers several compositions, anticipated if one is in prior art	102	2015-02-12	AFFIRMED	133
1015	sinclair	selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination	103	2015-02-13	AFFIRMED	134
1016	mills	fact reference may be modified to reflect feature of invention not enough for obviousness, must have suggested desirability of such modification.	103	2015-02-16	REVERSED	135
1017	larson, fridolph, schenck, adams	making integral obvious unless shows insight contrary to understanding and expectations of the art.	103	2015-02-24	AFFIRMED	136
1018	japikse, KSR	mere rearrangement of parts argument must not be impermissible hindsight reconstruction or mere conclusory statements	103	2015-02-25	REVERSED	137
1019	akamai	102 dispositive ques is wld POSITA reasonably understand/infer from single prior art every claim limitation	102	2015-02-26	AFFIRMED	138
1020	giannelli	configured to can mean designed or constructed to be used as	claim interpretation	2015-02-26	AFFIRMED	139
1021	chester	prima facie case not met when rejection so uninformative that applicant cannot counter the arguments	102	2015-03-02	REVERSED	140
1022	burr, diamond, digitech	except process claims, eligible subject matter must exist in some physical or tangible form	101	2015-03-03	REVERSED	141
1023	otto, young	inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims	claim interpretation	2015-03-04	AFFIRMED	142
1024	datamize, nautilus, interval	a completely subjective construction of a term renders the term indefinite	112	2015-03-05	AFFIRMED	143
1025	chevron	agency must give effect to unambiguously expressed intent of Congress	prior art	2015-03-09	AFFIRMED	144
1026	diamond, digitech	To qualify as a manufacture, must be tangible article given new form, quality, property, or comb.	101	2015-03-10	AFFIRMED	145
1027	gordon	combination not obvious if would render prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.	103	2015-03-11	REVERSED	147
1028	ariad, abbvie, rochester	must demonstate invented species sufficient to support claim to functionally-defined genus	112	2015-03-11	AFFIRMED	146
1029	Jung, chester	notice req. violated if rejection so uninformative prevents applicant from recognizing its grounds	103	2015-03-12	REVERSED	148
1030	angstadt, vaeck	for not enabling examiner has to show entails undue experimentation	112	2015-03-13	REVERSED	149
1031	armbruster, marzocchi	enabled unless reason to doubt objective truth of statements relied on for enabling support	112	2015-03-13	REVERSED	150
1032	steele	rejection based on speculative assumptions about meaning of claim should be a 112(2) not 103	112	2015-03-16	AFFIRMED	151
1033	zletz, garnero	plain meaning unless inconsistent and terms such as “sintered” can be structural limitations.	claim interpretation	2015-03-17	REVERSED	152
1034	peterson, iron grip	rebut 103 falls within prior art range by (1) prior art taught away or (2) unexpected results	103	2015-03-18	REVERSED	153
1035	stepan	PTO has statutory obligation under APA to provide timely notice of all “matters of fact and law asserted.”	APA	2015-03-18	REVERSED	154
1036	net moneyin	unless ref discloses within four corners not only all limitations but also arranged as in claim no 102	102	2015-03-19	REVERSED	157
1037	alza	can't simply rely on knowledge of POSITA to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the spec	112	2015-03-19	AFFIRMED	155
1038	hockerson-halberstadt	patent drawings do not define precise proportions	prior art	2015-03-19	REVERSED	156
1039	johnson	112(1) If alternative elements are positively recited in spec, they may be explicitly excluded in claims.	112	2015-03-20	REVERSED	158
1040	bruckelmeyer	prior art “printed publication” depends on whether “publicly accessible” during the prior period.	103	2015-03-23	REVERSED	159
1041	simpson, o'farrell	trademark “Java” in claim not indefinite because ‘Java’ is a well-known and widely-used term	112	2015-03-25	REVERSED	160
1042	montgomery, verizon	a prior art ref anticipates a patent claim under 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation	102	2015-03-27	REVERSED	161
1043	buszard, paulsen	102 each and every limitation of claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference	102	2015-03-30	REVERSED	162
1044	tempo lighting, zletz, bigio	PTO under no obligation to accept claim constr. proffered as pros. history disclaimer	claim interpretation	2015-03-30	AFFIRMED	163
1045	packard	under 112(2) reasonable precision is all that is required	112	2015-03-31	REVERSED	164
1046	swinehart	nothing wrong with defining something by what it does rather than what it is	112	2015-03-31	REVERSED	165
1047	atofina, harris, boesch, peterson	anticipation if falls within prior art range; prima facie obvious if overlaps	102	2015-04-01	AFFIRMED	166
1048	McLaughlin	103 POSITA hindsight only if does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure	103	2015-04-01	REVERSED	167
1049	edwards	in pharma "enablement requirement may be met by animal tests or in vitro data"	112(1)	2015-04-06	REVERSED	168
1050	dystar, alcon	motivation to combine doesn't have to come from prior art, and to modify can differ from applicant's	103	2015-04-07	AFFIRMED	169
1051	warner	factual basis, no speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction in 103	103	2015-04-07	REVERSED	170
1052	key pharms	determining 102/103 two steps, like infringement, construe claim, compare construed claim to prior art	102	2015-04-09	REVERSED	171
1053	innovention toys	no requirement the prior art references used in a rejection must be analogous art to each other	103	2015-04-10	AFFIRMED	172
1054	king	"printed matter" reasoning to method claims containing "informing" step that could be either printed or verbal	prior art	2015-04-12	AFFIRMED	173
1055	ngai, gulack	non-functional descriptive material may not be relied on for patentability	prior art	2015-04-12	AFFIRMED	174
1056	baxter travenol	ct. will not examine claims in greater detail than that argued by appellant	102	2015-04-13	AFFIRMED	175
1057	sneed	for 103 not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable	103	2015-04-15	AFFIRMED	176
1058	mayne	A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation.	103	2015-04-16	AFFIRMED	177
1059	gal, chu	not "design choice" if design achieves desired different functions different from the prior art	103	2015-04-17	REVERSED	178
1060	bond, akzo, standard havens	anticipation not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test	102	2015-04-19	AFFIRMED	179
1061	festo, omega, southwall, clement	prosecution history estoppel and disclaimer have no place in reexam, only reissue	305	2015-04-20	AFFIRMED	180
1062	astrazeneca, ngai, king	new set of instructions cannot distinguish kit from prior art	prior art	2015-04-21	AFFIRMED	181
1063	tokai	if alleged commercial success would stem from a feature disclosed in the prior art there can be no nexus	103	2015-04-22	AFFIRMED	183
1064	merck3	claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms in a claim preferred	claim interpretation	2015-04-22	REVERSED	182
1065	dulberg	only if considered desirable for any reason, is cutting integral structure into separable parts obvious	103	2015-04-23	REVERSED	184
1066	okajima, litton, GPAC, custom accessories	bald assertion of error without proposed altern. POSITA level not enough	103	2015-04-24	AFFIRMED	185
1067	kerkhoven	mixing two conventional spray detergents prima facie obvious, organic-inorganic hybrid composite is not	103	2015-04-26	REVERSED	186
1068	soni	unexpected results needs substantially improved, results were unexpected, absence of evidence to the contrary	103	2015-04-28	REVERSED	188
1069	santauraus	Negative claim limitations adeq. supported when spec. describes reason to exclude relevant information.	112(1)	2015-04-28	AFFIRMED	187
1070	mouttet	just because alternatives exist doesn't mean an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes	103	2015-04-29	AFFIRMED	189
1071	winner int'l	for teaching away, the benefits both lost and gained should be weighed against one another	103	2015-04-29	AFFIRMED	190
1072	wright, wands, strahilevitz, amgen1	undue experimentation needs "acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement."	112(1)	2015-04-29	REVERSED	191
1073	andrew corp.	whether or not something is similar to or substantially equal to relates to breadth not indefiniteness	112(2)	2015-05-01	REVERSED	192
1074	aspex	"configured to" is more akin to "designed to" and shouldn't be contrued too broadly as "capable of"	claim interpretation	2015-05-03	REVERSED	193
1075	catalina	patentability of an apparatus claim depends on claimed structure, not use or purpose of that structure.	claim interpretation	2015-05-04	AFFIRMED	194
1076	rice, chu	design choice rejection needs unexpected results or difference in function to be overcome	103	2015-05-05	AFFIRMED	195
1077	ultramercial	in § 101 analyses machine-or-transformation test provides a ‘useful clue’ in Alice framework 2nd step	101	2015-05-06	REVERSED	197
1078	graham	1st 3 factors are scope and content of prior art, difference between it and claims, level of ordinary skill,	103	2015-05-06	REVERSED	196
1079	yamamoto	applicant can correct errors in claim language and adjust claim scope by amending claims in pros so BRI	claim interpretation	2015-05-07	AFFIRMED	198
1080	king	to anticipate, prior art need only meet inherently disclosed limitation to extent the patented method does.	102	2015-05-10	AFFIRMED	199
1081	kuhle	design choice solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result	103	2015-05-11	REVERSED	200
1082	lifescan	if POSITA capable of performing operations with pencil and paper the steps performed are noninventive	103	2015-05-12	AFFIRMED	201
1083	aldrich	double patenting cannot be based on 103 using the patent under review as "prior art"	103	2015-05-13	REVERSED	202
1084	eli lilly	decision maker must construe claims, determine differences, and what makes claims patentably distinct	103	2015-05-13	REVERSED	204
1085	general foods, vogel	key to double patenting does any claim define obvious variation of invention already claimed	103/double patenting	2015-05-13	REVERSED	205
1086	catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon	patentability depends on structure, not purpose.	claim interpretation	2015-05-13	AFFIRMED	203
1087	atofina	disclosure of a genus in the prior art is not a disclosure of every species that is a member of that genus	102	2015-05-14	REVERSED	206
1088	mayne	structural relationships can provide requisite motivation to modify known compounds for 103 rejection	103	2015-05-14	AFFIRMED	207
1089	lizardtech	a description of a single embodiment "does not entitle the inventor" to broad claims	112(1)	2015-05-15	AFFIRMED	208
1090	russell, miller	printed matter non-statutory under 101 but no reason to ignore when claim directed to a combination	101	2015-05-18	AFFIRMED	209
1091	boehringer	intended use defines context in which invention operates, doesn't limit scope of claim	claim interpretation	2015-05-19	AFFIRMED	210
1092	texas instruments	whereby clause merely states the result of the limitation, adds nothing to patentability	claim interpretation	2015-05-19	AFFIRMED	211
1093	giacomini	for 102(e) provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.	112(1)	2015-05-21	REVERSED	212
1094	lockwood, jepson	102(e) prov app must necessarily disclose patentee's device, renders obvious is not sufficient	112(1)	2015-05-21	REVERSED	213
1095	par pharmaceutical	finding of inherency in 103 is a high standard, limitation at issue necessarily must be present	103	2015-05-22	AFFIRMED	214
1096	chilowski, lindell	expert opinion app meets 112 not entitled any weight facts supporting spec complies with 112 are	112	2015-05-26	AFFIRMED	215
1097	howmedica, Phillips	fact spec describes only single embodiment insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language	claim interpretation	2015-05-26	AFFIRMED	216
1098	gardner	claimed dimensions that cause the claimed device to perform differently from the prior art are critical	103	2015-05-28	REVERSED	217
1099	vizio	language properly construed to functionally limit rather than describe intended use is proper	claim interpretation	2015-05-28	REVERSED	218
1100	oda	where POSITA would recognize both error and appropriate correction, not new matter	112	2015-05-29	REVERSED	219
1101	aristocrat	The structure corresponding to the means for a computer implemented function must include the algorithm	112	2015-06-01	AFFIRMED	220
1102	reid, michalek, carroll	failures of experimenters with no interest in succeeding not accorded great weight	103	2015-06-02	AFFIRMED	221
1103	KSR	combining familiar elements according to known methods obvious when does no more than yield predictable results	103	2015-06-03	AFFIRMED	222
1104	connell	anticipation needs all elements disclosed arranged as in the claim	102	2015-06-04	REVERSED	224
1105	alza, strahilevitz, wands	extrinsic evidence ok to show well known in art or prove undue experimentation not req.	112	2015-06-04	REVERSED	223
1106	carnegie, webster loom	inventor may assume POSITA already knows the art and begin at point where invention begins	103	2015-06-08	AFFIRMED	225
1107	keller	one cannot show nonobviousness of combination by attacking individual references	103	2015-06-08	AFFIRMED	227
1108	interactive gift	Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, not ordinarily construed to require one	claim interpretation	2015-06-08	AFFIRMED	226
1109	zierden	mere statement of a new use for an old composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable	103	2015-06-10	AFFIRMED	228
1110	otsuka, takeda, atofina	two-prong test in chem, wld POSITA select prior art cmpd, reas. expec. of success to modify	103	2015-06-11	REVERSED	229
1111	WMS	The corresponding structure for a function performed by a software algorithm is the algorithm itself.	112	2015-06-11	AFFIRMED	230
1112	lighting world, rodriguez	112(6) does not apply to a nonce word	112	2015-06-12	AFFIRMED	231
1113	alice, mayo	simply appending general steps to abstract ideas performed by a computer not patent-eligible	101	2015-06-15	AFFIRMED	232
1114	preda	for 103 implicit disclosure in prior art of inferences POSITA would reasonably be expected to draw OK	103	2015-06-15	AFFIRMED	233
1115	ovshinsky	complaints against examiners matter for petition not appeal	103	2015-06-16	AFFIRMED	234
1116	gordon	if modification would make prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, no suggestion or motivation	103	2015-06-17	REVERSED	235
1117	eli lilly, ariad	written desc requires desc of the invention, not merely drawing fence around outer limits of genus	112	2015-06-18	AFFIRMED	236
1118	hearing, nautilus	not all terms of degree indefinite, spec must provide some standard for measuring that degree	112	2015-06-18	AFFIRMED	237
1119	paulsen, intellicall	uncommon definition must be set out in spec to give POSITA notice	112	2015-06-29	REVERSED	238
1120	sasse, hoeksema	presumption prior art enabling overcome if process making composition unknown at time of invention	prior art	2015-06-29	REVERSED	239
1121	jamesbury, connell	In order to anticipate identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as patent claim.	102	2015-06-30	REVERSED	240
1122	riverwood, constant	putting a fig in the background section and describing it as conventional makes it prior art.	prior art	2015-06-30	REVERSED	241
1123	jamesbury, connell	In order to anticipate identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as patent claim	102	2015-07-01	REVERSED
1124	mouttet	order in which the references are listed in the rejection makes no substantive difference	103	2015-07-02	AFFIRMED	242
1125	angstadt	showing disclosure entials undue experimentation PTO's initial burden	112	2015-07-03	REVERSED	243
1126	armbruster, marzocchi	unless reason to doubt objective truth of statements relied on spec is enabling	112	2015-07-03	REVERSED	244
1127	sullivan	failure to meaningfully address submitted evidence is error	112	2015-07-03	REVERSED	245
1128	vitronics	132 affidavits for expert testimony of POSITA level can't be ignored	112	2015-07-03	REVERSED	246
1129	bigio	for analogous art, Examiner must consult structure and function of claimed invention as perceived by POSITA.	103	2015-07-07	REVERSED	248
1130	bigio, hyatt	during prosecution the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation'.	claim interpretation	2015-07-07	AFFIRMED	247
1131	k-tec	analogous art same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to particular problem inventor is involved with.	103	2015-07-08	AFFIRMED	249
1132	sjolund	[C]laims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention.	claim interpretation	2015-07-12	REVERSED	250
1133	sebek, patel	if prior art optimum values within outer limits of range, optimum values outside may not be obvious	103	2015-07-13	REVERSED	252
1134	interval	have to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty	112	2015-07-13	AFFIRMED	251
1135	aller, antonie	if not a result-effective variable, not obvious under Aller rule discovery of optimum value obvious	103	2015-07-14	REVERSED	253
1136	miyazaki, packard	indefinite if a claim amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions	112	2015-07-15	AFFIRMED	254
1137	enzo, edwards, carnegie	for 112(1) all that is req is spec demonstrates that inventor was in poss of the invention.	112	2015-07-16	REVERSED	255
1138	packard	112(2) 'particular[ity]' and 'distinct[ness]' indicates claims req to be cast in clear not ambiguous terms	112	2015-07-17	AFFIRMED	256
1139	morris, tempo lighting	PTO under no obligation to accept claim const. proffered as a prosecution history disclaimer	claim interpretation	2015-07-19	AFFIRMED	257
1140	wrigley, kennametal	102 prior art are disclosed number of components so great POSITA wouldn't see combination	102	2015-07-20	AFFIRMED	258
1141	hewlett-packard	Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.	claim interpretation	2015-07-21	AFFIRMED	259
1142	hewlett-packard	Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.	claim interpretation	2015-07-22	AFFIRMED	260
1143	schreiber	If a prior art structure is capable of performing a claimed intended use, then it meets the claim.	prior art	2015-07-22	AFFIRMED	261
1144	schreiber	If a prior art structure is capable of performing a claimed intended use, then it meets the claim.	prior art	2015-07-22	AFFIRMED	262
1145	IPXL, lyell	Claiming two statutory classes within a single claim renders the claim indefinite	112(2)	2015-07-23	REVERSED	263
1146	nix, Phillips, boon	evidence does not include dictionaries which only serve as aids to the court's understanding	claim interpretation	2015-07-24	AFFIRMED	264
1147	centocor	claiming antibodies with specific properties can result in 112(1) problem if not adequately described	112(1)	2015-07-27	AFFIRMED	265
1148	weiler, doyle, U.S. Indus. Chems.	reissue after restriction, must have been covered and secured by the original.	251	2015-07-28	REVERSED	266
1149	fout	Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render substitution obvious	103	2015-07-29	AFFIRMED	267
1150	malagari	for 102 rejection, teaching away or unexpected results not relevant	102	2015-07-30	AFFIRMED	268
1151	johnson	breadth is not indefiniteness	112(2)	2015-07-31	REVERSED	269
1152	chapman, shinseki	appellant must not only show the existence of error, but also that the error was harmful	103	2015-08-03	AFFIRMED	270
1153	gardner, case	Obviousness is legal conclusion based on facts of each case, and "precedent cannot establish facts."	103	2015-08-03	REVERSED	271
1154	constant, enhanced security	if prior art accessibility proved, no requirement public actually received information	prior art	2015-08-04	AFFIRMED	272
1155	halliburton, miyazaki	pure functional claim limitations can't encompass structures not invented performing function	112(1)	2015-08-06	AFFIRMED	273
1156	wright3	spec must teach full scope of invention without undue experimentation	112(1)	2015-08-06	AFFIRMED	274
1157	parks	mere abs. of lit. support for neg. limit. not a prima facie case for lack of adeq. desc. sup. under 112(1)	112(1)	2015-08-07	REVERSED	275
1158	corona, windemuth	catalytic action not predictable	103	2015-08-10	AFFIRMED	276
1159	moore	for 112(2) do claims circumscribe particular area with reasonable degree of precision and particularity	112(2)	2015-08-11	REVERSED	277
1160	antonie, sebek	103 optimization of result-effective variable, prior art must recognize variable as result-effective	103	2015-08-12	REVERSED	278
1161	oetiker	The conclusion of obviousness vel non is based on the preponderance of evidence and argument in the record.	103	2015-08-13	REVERSED	279
1162	kao, piasecki	If rebuttal evidence of adequate weight is produced holding of prima facie obviousness is dissipated.	103	2015-08-14	AFFIRMED	280
1163	kronig, Jung, noznick, krammes, cowles	“different language” does not necessarily trigger a new ground of rejection	103	2015-08-17	AFFIRMED	281
1164	McLaughlin	question of obviousness involves hindsight reasoning, but not only knowledge gleaned from disclosure	103	2015-08-18	AFFIRMED	282
1165	mraz, hockerson-halberstadt, wilson	patent drawings not relied upon does not mean things they show are disregarded	prior art	2015-08-18	AFFIRMED	283
1166	robertson	inherency cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities	102	2015-08-19	REVERSED	286
1167	hoeksema	An invention is not "possessed" absent some known or obvious way to make it.	103	2015-08-19	REVERSED	284
1168	payne	references relied on to reject must be in possession of public	103	2015-08-19	REVERSED	285
1169	chef america	ordinary, simple English words, absent indication context changes meaning, mean exactly what they say	claim interpretation	2015-08-20	REVERSED	287
1170	suitco surface	BRI doesn't mean unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related.	claim interpretation	2015-08-20	REVERSED	288
1171	enocean, williamson	should abandon ‘strong’ presumption limitation lacking the word ‘means’ not subject to 112(6)	112(6)	2015-08-21	REVERSED	289
1172	enzo, lockwood	words, structures, diagrams, formulas that fully set forth claimed invention satisfy writ. descrip.	112(1)	2015-08-24	AFFIRMED	290
1173	wilder	Every limitation positively recited in claim must be given effect to determine subject matter claim defines	claim interpretation	2015-08-24	REVERSED	291
1174	halliburton, datamize, miyazaki	112(2) requires spec to provide way to measure term of degree	112(2)	2015-08-25	REVERSED	292
1175	vogel	a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 cannot be cured by terminal disclaimer	101	2015-08-26	AFFIRMED	294
1176	fine	103 prima facie case req each and every limitation described or suggested in prior art or obvious to posita	103	2015-08-26	REVERSED	293
1177	schumer, medline	the word "or" means that items in a sequence are alternatives to each other	claim interpretation	2015-08-27	AFFIRMED	295
1178	baldwin graphic, interactive gift	claim not limited to perf of steps in order recited, unless req explicit or impli	claim interpretation	2015-08-28	AFFIRMED	297
1179	antor media, amgen2	A prior art reference cannot anticipate if not enabled, burden on applicant	prior art	2015-08-28	AFFIRMED	296
1180	galderma	for 103 examiner doesn't have to start with commercial embodiment and prove motivation to alter it	103	2015-08-31	AFFIRMED	298
1181	galderma	for prior art to teach away must criticize, discredit or discourage	103	2015-08-31	AFFIRMED	299
1182	pacing tech, beere	Preamble limiting when provides antecedent basis + nec to understand pos limit in body of claim	claim interpretation	2015-09-01	REVERSED	300
1183	skoner, baxter travenol	Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness, as unexpected are of unobviousness	103	2015-09-02	AFFIRMED	301
1184	sarker	because steps are mental processes, disembodied thoughts not subject to patenting	101	2015-09-03	AFFIRMED	302
1185	santarus, bimeda, howmedica	fact spec desc only singl embod insuf to limit broad claim lang	112(1)	2015-09-04	AFFIRMED	303
1186	woodruff	must show particular range critical, by showing claimed range achieves unexp result	103	2015-09-07	AFFIRMED	304
1187	johnston	optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted	claim interpretation	2015-09-09	REVERSED	305
1188	johnston	analyzed the linguistic precision of optional elements, must use permissive lang	claim interpretation	2015-09-10	REVERSED	306
1189	rambus, lisle	when Spec specifies goal, any claim const. that renders invention incapable of meeting goal incorrect	claim interpretation	2015-09-11	REVERSED	308
1190	fisher	chemical reactions may be unpredictable, enablement scope varies inversely with unpredictability degree	112(1)	2015-09-14	AFFIRMED	309
1191	nat'l recovery	scope of enablement is disclosed in the spec plus known to POSITA without undue experimentation	112(1)	2015-09-14	AFFIRMED	307
1192	am. calcar	in response to' connotes second event occurs in reaction to first event ... automatically	claim interpretation	2015-09-15	REVERSED	310
1193	net moneyin	Unless reference discloses all limitations claimed, arranged or combined in same way cannot anticipate	102	2015-09-16	REVERSED	311
1194	schreiber	free to recite apparatus features either structurally or functionally, but functionally carries a risk.	claim interpretation	2015-09-17	AFFIRMED	312
1195	kalman	The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject [application] teaches.	102	2015-09-18	AFFIRMED	313
1196	exxon research, jolly	no per se indefiniteness rules, degree terms definite only if POSITA can determine from spec	112(2)	2015-09-22	AFFIRMED	314
1197	par pharmaceutical, obiaya	103 inherency when the limitation at issue is ‘natural result’ of prior art combination	103	2015-09-23	AFFIRMED	315
1198	ziegler	nonprovisional entitled to benefit of provisional if described in manner that satisfies enablement req.	112(1)	2015-09-24	REVERSED	316
1199	vasudevan	conjunctive interpretation of "or" is proper, phrase "`not A, B, or C' means `not A, not B, and not C.'"	claim interpretation	2015-09-25	AFFIRMED	317
1200	bayer	if prior art gives no indication which parameters critical or which choice likely successful not obvious	103	2015-09-30	REVERSED	318
1201	eaton	commercial success must be due to merits of claimed invention beyond what was readily available in prior art.	103	2015-10-02	AFFIRMED	319
1202	merck	can't show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where rejections based on combinations of refs	103	2015-10-05	AFFIRMED	320
1203	gechter	every claim limitation must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate claim.	102	2015-10-08	REVERSED	321
1204	nautilus	112(2) claims inform POSITA of invention scope with reasonable certainty, absolute precision unattainable.	112(2)	2015-10-12	REVERSED	322
1205	avid	the use of the word "means" requires a search for structure in the application at issue	112	2015-10-14	REVERSED	323
1206	reading and bates, beckman, symbol tech	even if ref discloses inoperative device, prior art for all that it teaches	prior art	2015-10-15	AFFIRMED	324
1207	datamize	While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.	112(1)	2015-10-16	AFFIRMED	325
1208	hitachi	obviousness-type double patenting must be based on the claims, but court may look to spec to define terms	103	2015-10-20	AFFIRMED	326
1209	enzo	for 112(2) spec must allow POSITA to visualize or recognize identity of subject matter purportedly described	112(2)	2015-10-21	AFFIRMED	327
1210	wright2	The claimed subject matter need not be described "in haec verba" in spec in order to satisfy 112(2).	112(2)	2015-10-21	AFFIRMED	328
1211	microsoft2, skvorecz	broadest reas interp ... does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.	claim interpretation	2015-10-22	REVERSED	329
1212	suitco surface	BRI not unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to invention.	claim interpretation	2015-10-22	REVERSED	330
1213	kronig, Jung	additional explanations are a fair opportunity to respond to arguments offered for the first time	appellate procedure	2015-10-23	AFFIRMED	331
1214	princeton biochemicals	using only spec as roadmap to piece together prior art elements impermissible hindsight	103	2015-10-26	REVERSED	332
1215	cortright	claim interpretation not so broad conflicts with meaning given to identical terms in analogous art	claim interpretation	2015-10-27	REVERSED	333
1216	skvorecz	BRI during examination doesn't mean legally incorrect interpretation	claim interpretation	2015-10-27	REVERSED	334
1217	katz	BRI of a conditional step in a method claim includes instances in which conditional step would not be invoked	claim interpretation	2015-10-28	AFFIRMED	335
1218	warner	no speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in factual basis	103	2015-10-29	REVERSED	336
1219	spada	Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.	102	2015-10-30	AFFIRMED	337
1220	circuitcheck	question is whether inventor wld look to this particular art to solve the particular problem at hand.	prior art	2015-11-02	AFFIRMED	338
1221	clay	ref reasonably pertinent if logically wld have commended itself to inventor's attention in considering prob	prior art	2015-11-02	AFFIRMED	339
1222	bilstad	disclosure of species may be sufficient written description for later claimed genus including that species	112(1)	2015-11-04	REVERSED	340
1223	tronzo	no written desc support for genus if (1) unpredict in perf (2) spec makes clear only specific species disc	112(1)	2015-11-04	REVERSED	341
1224	wilder2	descrip requirement needs descrip of invention, not indication of result one might achieve if one made it	112(1)	2015-11-05	REVERSED	343
1225	minformation, TALtech	ordering of steps req when logic or grammar of claim lang or spec directly or implicitly req	claim interpretation	2015-11-05	REVERSED	342
1226	leggett	well settled that teaching away is irrelevant to anticipation	102	2015-11-06	AFFIRMED	344
1227	catalina	patentability of apparatus claim depends on claimed structure, not use or purpose of that structure.	claim interpretation	2015-11-09	AFFIRMED	345
1228	paragon	improper to construe non-functional system claim terms making infringement/validity turn on function	claim interpretation	2015-11-09	AFFIRMED	346
1229	roberts	machine inventor entitled to benefit of all uses, no matter whether he conceived idea of the use or not	claim interpretation	2015-11-09	AFFIRMED	347
1230	superior industries, hewlett-packard	A system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does	claim interpretation	2015-11-09	AFFIRMED	348
1231	catalina	novelty of the device used is not dispositive as to the patentability of method claims	claim interpretation	2015-11-10	REVERSED	349
1232	K-2, Rowe	functional or use limitations OK if describe structural requirements of device.	claim interpretation	2015-11-10	REVERSED	350
1233	ICON	the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.	claim interpretation	2015-11-11	AFFIRMED	351
1234	giolito	It is immaterial whether similar claims have been allowed to others.	103	2015-11-13	AFFIRMED	352
1235	gyurik	allowed claims in other apps or patents not considered in reviewing specific rejections of specific claims	103	2015-11-13	AFFIRMED	353
1236	ariad	disclosure must reasonably convey to POSITA inventor possessed claimed subject matter as of filing date	112(1)	2015-11-16	AFFIRMED	354
1237	curtis	Whether written description adequately supports claims is an issue of fact.	112(1)	2015-11-16	AFFIRMED	355
1238	DDR Holdings	claim term depending solely on unrestrained, subjective opinion of particular individual indefinite	112(2)	2015-11-17	AFFIRMED	356
1239	bigio	analogous art has two separate tests; same field or reasonably pertinent to same problem	prior art	2015-11-18	REVERSED	357
1240	ellis	Structural similarities and functional overlap can show prior art ref reasonably pertinent to invention	prior art	2015-11-18	REVERSED	358
1241	perfect web	103 depends on Graham factual findings, but may include recourse to logic, judgement, and common sense	103	2015-11-19	AFFIRMED	359
1242	belden, intouch	obviousness concerns whether POSITA not only cld have made but wld have been motivated to combine	103	2015-11-20	REVERSED	360
1243	chaganti	not enough to say would have been reason to combine two refs because wld "have been obvious to POSITA."	103	2015-11-20	REVERSED	361
1244	kuhle	design choice when solves no stated problem and presents no novel or unexpected result	103	2015-11-23	AFFIRMED	362
1245	rice	design choice issue is whether differences result in difference in function or give unexpected results.	103	2015-11-23	AFFIRMED	363
1246	Phillips	dep. claim that adds particular limitation gives rise to presumption limitation not present in ind. claim	claim interpretation	2015-11-24	AFFIRMED	364
1247	sunrace	presump of claim differentiation esp strong when limitation only meaningful diff between ind and dep claim	claim interpretation	2015-11-24	AFFIRMED	365
1248	constant, nomiya	statement by applicant certain matter is prior art admission matter is prior art for all purposes	prior art	2015-11-25	AFFIRMED	366
1249	katz, american academy	if the method claim need not invoke conditional steps they need not be found in prior art	claim interpretation	2015-11-26	AFFIRMED	367
1250	borkowski	must give clear explanation of exhibits used to antedate a reference pointing out what facts established	prior art	2015-11-30	REVERSED	368
1251	KSR	important to identify reason that wld prompt POSITA to combine the elements in way claimed new invention does.	103	2015-12-01	REVERSED	369
1252	superguide	particu embodi in writ desc may not be read into claim when claim language broader than the embodiment.	claim interpretation	2015-12-02	AFFIRMED	370
1253	mraz, seid	[A]n accidental disclosure, if clearly made in a drawing, is available as a reference.	prior art	2015-12-03	AFFIRMED	371
1254	wagner	drawings can be used as prior art, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing.	prior art	2015-12-03	AFFIRMED	372
1255	net moneyin	102 prior art must not only disclose all elements of claim, but also 'arranged as in the claim.'	102	2015-12-07	REVERSED	373
1256	clemens	objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims offered to support	103	2015-12-08	REVERSED	374
1257	sud-chemie	evidence of unexpected results will not necessarily overcome strong prima facie showing of obviousness	103	2015-12-08	REVERSED	375
1258	cable	gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence of market share	103	2015-12-11	AFFIRMED	376
1259	mouttet	mere disclosure of alternative design does not teach away	103	2015-12-14	AFFIRMED	377
1260	greenfield	evidence one or small number of species gives unexpected results inadequate proof of non-obviousness	103	2015-12-15	AFFIRMED	378
1261	harris	need to show unexpected results covering the scope of the claimed range	103	2015-12-15	AFFIRMED	379
1262	gechter	PTO record must include specific fact findings for each contested limitation + satisfactory explanations	appellate procedure	2015-12-16	REVERSED	380
1263	Jung	rejection must be set forth in sufficiently articulate informative manner to meet notice requirement of sec 132	appellate procedure	2015-12-16	REVERSED	381
1264	stepan	PTO's obligation to provide prior notice of all matters of fact and law asserted prior to an appeal hearing	appellate procedure	2015-12-16	REVERSED	382
1265	Nazomi, karlin	Claim differentiation means limitations stated in dependent claims not read into independent claim	claim interpretation	2015-12-17	REVERSED	383
1266	impax, gleave, novo	enablement for prior art to anticipate under 102 does not require utility, unlike under 112.	102	2015-12-18	AFFIRMED	384
1267	williamson	Module' is well-known nonce word that can operate as substitute for 'means' in the context of sec 112(f)	112(6)	2015-12-21	AFFIRMED	385
1268	brown	It is the patentability of the product claimed and not the recited process steps which must be established.	claim interpretation	2015-12-22	AFFIRMED	386
1269	seattle box	When word of degree used fact-finder must determine if spec provides standard for measuring degree.	112(2)	2015-12-28	AFFIRMED	387
1270	plantronics	Where reasoning absent, cannot assume ordinary artisan would be awakened to modify prior art.	103	2015-12-30	REVERSED	388
1271	sneed	not necessary inventions of references be physically combinable to render obvious invention under review	103	2015-12-30	AFFIRMED	389
1272	yorkey	The Board has discretion to give one item more weight unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so	103	2015-12-30	AFFIRMED	390
1273	CIAS	"comprised of" ok as other than "transition phrase," partakes of long-standing recognition as open-ended term	claim interpretation	2015-12-31	AFFIRMED	391
1274	Beckman	POSITA able to read a ref for all that it teaches, not limited to its explicit text preferred embodiment	prior art	2016-01-04	AFFIRMED	392
1275	Chapman	ref used for all it realistically teaches, not limited to disclosures in specific illustrative examples.	prior art	2016-01-04	AFFIRMED	393
1276	syntex	What ref teaches POSITA not limited to what it specifically 'talks about' or is 'mentioned' or 'written'	prior art	2016-01-04	AFFIRMED	394
1277	dunn	Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method.	103	2016-01-05	AFFIRMED	395
1278	sponnoble	combination may be said to teach away where combined teachings produce "seemingly inoperative device"	103	2016-01-05	AFFIRMED	396
1279	wood	common sense necessary in deciding which fields POSITA would reasonably be expected to look for solution	103	2016-01-06	REVERSED	397
1280	ortho pharmaceutical	the claims, not the specification, define an invention and are compared for double patenting	103	2016-01-07	REVERSED	398
1281	iron grip	if commercial success is license evidence of nexus req, because license cheaper than defending lawsuit	103	2016-01-08	AFFIRMED	399
1282	fritch	impermissible to use claimed invention as instruction manual to piece together teachings of the prior art.	103	2016-01-11	REVERSED	400
1283	fritch	Dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious	103	2016-01-11	REVERSED	401
1284	belden	103 - not only if POSITA could have but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications	103	2016-01-12	REVERSED	402
1285	brookhill-wilk	Absent express intent to impart novel meaning to claim term it takes ordinary and customary meaning	claim interpretation	2016-01-13	AFFIRMED	403
1286	helmsderfer	patentee may act as own lexicographer but must clearly express that intent in the written description	claim interpretation	2016-01-13	AFFIRMED	404
1287	multiform	special meaning for term must be clear in spec so any departure from common usage understood by POSITA	claim interpretation	2016-01-13	AFFIRMED	405
1288	keller, wood	The test for obviousness is what combined teachings of references would have suggested to POSITA	103	2016-01-14	AFFIRMED	406
1289	nievelt	Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.	103	2016-01-14	AFFIRMED	407
1290	sneed, orthopedic	not necessary that inventions of references be physically combinable to render invention obvious	103	2016-01-14	AFFIRMED	408
1291	fulton	an alternative, is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate a teaching away	103	2016-01-15	AFFIRMED	409
1292	gurley, ricoh, optivus	to teach away POSITA discouraged from following path in ref, or led in divergent direction	103	2016-01-15	AFFIRMED	410
1293	hotchkiss	classical 103 the knob of clay was simply the substitution of one [known] material for another [wood]	103	2016-01-20	AFFIRMED	413
1294	boehringer	intended use will not limit scope of claim because does no more than define context in which operates	claim interpretation	2016-01-20	AFFIRMED	411
1295	gulack	descriptive material must be functionally related to the substrate, to distinguish invention from prior art	claim interpretation	2016-01-20	AFFIRMED	412
1296	miller	claim limitations reciting intended use merely go to the breadth of the claim and not indefiniteness.	112(2)	2016-01-21	REVERSED	414
1297	mannesmann	if "consisting of" appears in clause (a), not preamble, it limits only element set forth in clause (a)	claim interpretation	2016-01-22	REVERSED	415
1298	Geo. M. Martin	Commercial success of a product is relevant only insofar as success is due to claimed invention.	103	2016-01-25	AFFIRMED	416
1299	huang	Appellant must offer proof sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention	103	2016-01-25	AFFIRMED	417
1300	geisler, malagari	claim rendered prima facie obvious by prior art reference that discloses range that touches range recited in the claim.	103	2016-01-27	AFFIRMED	418
1301	arkley	picking and choosing has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection	102	2016-01-28	REVERSED	419
1302	young, keller	for obviousness one must always weigh evidence as a whole including teaching away or a conflict.	103	2016-01-29	AFFIRMED	420
1303	motorola	express articulation of what skilled artisan would have known not req'd if evident POSITA would know	103	2016-02-01	AFFIRMED	421
1304	pharmastem	composition obvious if POSITA wld've had reason to attempt to make + reasonable expectation of success	103	2016-02-03	AFFIRMED	422
1305	bell comm	[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.	claim interpretation	2016-02-05	AFFIRMED	423
1306	corning glass, kropa	complete invention in claim body + preamble only states intended use, not a claim limitation	claim interpretation	2016-02-05	AFFIRMED	424
1307	rowe, corning glass	where patentee uses preamble to recite structural limitations, PTO gives effect to that usage.	claim interpretation	2016-02-05	AFFIRMED	425
1308	galderma	seeking approval to market a generic version of a drug, without more, not evidence of commercial success	103	2016-02-15	AFFIRMED	426
1309	soverain	broader independent claim can't be nonobvious if dependent claim stemming from it invalid for obviousness	103	2016-02-15	AFFIRMED	427
1310	self, superguide, e-pass	patentability may not be based on limitations not appearing in the claims	claim interpretation	2016-02-16	AFFIRMED	428
1311	chore-time	invention may be held obvious without specific finding of level of skill where prior art reflects level	103	2016-02-18	AFFIRMED	429
1312	okajima, litton	if prior art reflects appropriate level of skill absence of specific findings not reversible error	103	2016-02-18	AFFIRMED	430
1313	becton	Where claim lists elements separately, implication is those elements are distinct components of invention.	claim interpretation	2016-02-19	REVERSED	431
1314	kahn	need some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support legal conclusion of obviousness	103	2016-02-22	REVERSED	432
1315	oelrich	An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability.	102	2016-02-23	REVERSED	433
1316	abbott diabetes, suitco surface	BRI no unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related	claim interpretation	2016-02-24	REVERSED	434
1317	coley	Where there is doubt regarding the teachings of a reference, the scales should be inclined toward applicant.	102	2016-02-25	REVERSED	435
1318	burr	"[a] machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices."	101	2016-02-26	AFFIRMED	436
1319	schreiber, hallman	reason to believe prior art inherently capable of performing claimed function, burden shifts	prior art	2016-02-26	AFFIRMED	437
1320	johnston	optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted	claim interpretation	2016-03-01	AFFIRMED	438
1321	panduit	cts shld consider prior art refs in entirety including those portions that would argue against obviousness	prior art	2016-03-02	REVERSED	439
1322	phillips	Claims may embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the spec	claim interpretation	2016-03-03	AFFIRMED	440
1323	SRI	[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.	claim interpretation	2016-03-03	AFFIRMED	441
1324	applied materials	unexpected results must be different in kind and not merely in degree from results of prior art	103	2016-03-04	AFFIRMED	442
1325	baxter travenol	unexpected results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.	103	2016-03-04	AFFIRMED	443
1326	soni	unexpected results must show claimed invention exhibits superior property POSITA wld have found surprising	103	2016-03-04	AFFIRMED	444
1327	medichem	simultaneous advantages and disadvantages does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine	103	2016-03-07	AFFIRMED	445
1328	par pharmaceutical	reasonable expectation of success 103 req. does not necessitate absolute certainty for success	103	2016-03-07	AFFIRMED	446
1329	woodruff	merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render process again patentable	103	2016-03-08	AFFIRMED	447
1330	zierden	new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable.	103	2016-03-08	AFFIRMED	448
1331	fallaux	harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting pertinent if app & patent not commonly owned	103	2016-03-09	AFFIRMED	449
1332	ochiai, torpharm	103 req fact-intensive comparison of claimed process with prior art not application of per se rule	103	2016-03-09	REVERSED	450
1333	atlas powder, dinh-nguyen	It is not function of the claims to specifically exclude possible inoperative substances	claim interpretation	2016-03-10	REVERSED	451
1334	cortright	BRI must be consistent with ordinary meaning of term, use of term in spec and POSITA interpretation	claim interpretation	2016-03-11	REVERSED	452
1335	thorner	To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term	claim interpretation	2016-03-11	AFFIRMED	453
1336	rosselet, hedges	obviousness test not whether express suggestion of invention present in any or all references	103	2016-03-14	AFFIRMED	454
1337	hoch	Where reference is relied on in rejection, whether or not in a 'minor capacity,' rejection must include it	103	2016-03-15	REVERSED	455
1338	gulack	critical question: new and unobvious functional relationship existing between printed matter and substrate?	102	2016-03-16	AFFIRMED	456
1339	ngai	if so anyone could continue patenting a product indefinitely provided they add a new instruction sheet to it	102	2016-03-16	AFFIRMED	457
1340	buysafe	claims squarely about creating a contractual relationship are an abstract idea	101	2016-03-17	REVERSED	458
1341	DDR Holdings	claim rooted in computer tech to overcome problem specifically arising in networks not abstract idea	101	2016-03-17	REVERSED	459
1342	IPXL	claim reciting both system (or apparatus) and method of using that system (or apparatus) invalid under 112(2)	112(2)	2016-03-18	AFFIRMED	460
1343	katz interactive, ultimatepointer	"placed in an initial operating state" directed to user actions, not system capabilities	112(2)	2016-03-18	AFFIRMED	461
1344	kennametal, petering	a 102 if POSITA, reading the ref, would 'at once envisage' claimed arrangement / combination.	102	2016-03-21	AFFIRMED	462
1345	elan pharm., donohue	To serve as an anticipating reference, must enable that which it is asserted to anticipate	102	2016-03-22	REVERSED	463
1346	trading tech.	To benefit from prior filing date, a provisional must provide adequate 112(1) written description	112(1)	2016-03-22	REVERSED	464
1347	williamson	112(6): words of claim understood by POSITA to have sufficiently definite meaning as name for structure	112(6)	2016-03-23	REVERSED	465
1348	kahn	there must be some articulated reasoning and rational underpinning to support legal conclusion of obviousness	103	2016-03-24	REVERSED	466
1349	bing shun, badasa	Wikipedia unreliable (l) not peer reviewed; (2) authors unknown; (3) anyone can contribute	prior art	2016-03-25	AFFIRMED	467
1350	steele	error to affirm a rejection of indefinite claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)	112(2)	2016-03-28	REVERSED	468
1351	NTP	131 dec. OK to establish a prior invention date, no mandate for some heightened independent corroboration	prior art	2016-03-29	REVERSED	469
1352	metabolite	preamble may provide claim const. context if intended use statement basis for distinguishing prior art	claim interpretation	2016-03-30	REVERSED	470
1353	verdegaal, bond	for 102 every element expressly or inherently described in single prior art arranged as in claim	102	2016-03-31	REVERSED	471
1354	gurley	ref teaches away when POSITA, upon reading it . . . would be discouraged from following the path set out	103	2016-04-01	REVERSED	472
1355	innovention toys	103 must explain how prior art would have commended itself to inventor considering the problem	103	2016-04-01	REVERSED	473
1356	DDR Holdings	recitation of generic computer elements doesn't make claim directed to abstract idea patent-eligible	101	2016-04-06	AFFIRMED	474
1357	clinton	obviousness does not require absolute predictability, but a reasonable expectation of success is necessary	103	2016-04-07	AFFIRMED	475
1358	scientific plastic	reference's pertinence must be with foresight of POSITA, not hindsight of inventor's success	103	2016-04-07	AFFIRMED	476
1359	gordon	If modification would render prior art unsatisfactory for intended purpose, no 103 suggestion or motivation	103	2016-04-11	AFFIRMED	477
1360	ratti	where prior art taught device required rigidity to operate but claimed invention req. resiliency not obvious	103	2016-04-11	AFFIRMED	478
1361	swartz, enzo, fisher, fouche, newman	utility (question of fact) and enablement (question of law) closely related	101	2016-04-12	AFFIRMED	479
1362	swartz, enzo, fisher, fouche, newman	utility (question of fact) and enablement (question of law) closely related	112	2016-04-12	AFFIRMED	479
1363	griffin	wherein clause limiting if it provides "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps" of the claim	claim interpretation	2016-04-15	AFFIRMED	480
1364	toshiba, hewlett-packard	apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.	claim interpretation	2016-04-18	AFFIRMED	481
1365	santarus	Negative claim limitations supported when specification describes reason to exclude relevant limitation	claim interpretation	2016-04-19	AFFIRMED	482
1366	atlas powder, best	claiming of unknown property inherently present in prior art does not make claims patentable.	102	2016-04-20	AFFIRMED	483
1367	ethicon	rejecting an interpretation that renders a limitation meaninglessly empty	claim interpretation	2016-04-22	REVERSED	484
1368	typhoon touch, microprocessor	capable of test req. prior art capable of performing function w/o more programming	claim interpretation	2016-04-22	REVERSED	485
1369	cronyn, constant	dissemination and public accessibility key to legal determination whether prior art ref published	prior art	2016-04-25	REVERSED	486
1370	belden	103 POSITA not only could have made but would have been motivated to make combinations or modifications	103	2016-04-26	REVERSED	487
1371	gordon	If proposed modification renders prior art unsatisfactory for intended purpose, no suggestion or motivation	103	2016-04-27	REVERSED	488
1372	bose	no dispute that mathematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter	102	2016-05-03	AFFIRMED	489
1373	may, nolan	unexpected results must be weighed against prima facie obviousness in making a final 103 determination	103	2016-05-03	AFFIRMED	490
1374	K-2	the Office may not read the claims in a way that would effectively expunge a term from the claim language	claim interpretation	2016-05-06	REVERSED	491
1375	Morris	PTO applies to claim broadest reasonable meaning of words in ordinary usage as wld be understood by POSITA	claim interpretation	2016-05-06	REVERSED	492
1376	wesslau, bausch & lomb	for 103 impermissible to pick and choose from one ref only so much as will support position	103	2016-05-09	REVERSED	493
1377	wrigley	a combination where all required to obtain it is to substitute one well-known agent for another is obvious	103	2016-05-10	AFFIRMED	494
1378	wertheim	pointing to fact that claim I reads on embodiments outside scope of description satisfied 112(1) burden	112(1)	2016-05-11	AFFIRMED	495
1379	ACCO	one possible obvious combination falls outside claims fails to undercut other obvious combination lies within	103	2016-05-13	AFFIRMED	496
1380	otto	inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability	claim interpretation	2016-05-13	AFFIRMED	497
1381	thibault	Expressions relating apparatus to contents during intended operation of no significance to patentability	claim interpretation	2016-05-13	AFFIRMED	498
1382	michlin	patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations not upon statements of function	claim interpretation	2016-05-16	AFFIRMED	499
1383	falco-gunter	if literature provides genes and their nucleotide sequences 112(1) does not req. their recitation	112(1)	2016-05-17	REVERSED	500
1384	american medical	preamble inot limiting if can be deleted and claim body describes structurally complete invention	claim interpretation	2016-05-18	AFFIRMED	501
1385	robertson	the odd use of fasteners with other than their mates insufficient to establish inherency.	102	2016-05-25	REVERSED	504
1386	hewlett-packard	prior art that sometimes, but not always, embodies claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect	103	2016-05-25	AFFIRMED	502
1387	seattle box	When word of degree is used in claim, incumbent upon Appellants to provide standard for measuring it.	112(2)	2016-05-25	AFFIRMED	505
1388	optical disc	Without evidence of express intent to impart novel meaning to claim term, takes on ordinary meaning	claim interpretation	2016-05-25	AFFIRMED	503
1389	credle	Whether a claim is indefinite is an issue of law.	112(2)	2016-05-26	REVERSED	506
1390	o'farrell	"obvious to try" means either to vary parameters or explore new technology so not the standard under 103	103	2016-05-27	REVERSED	507
1391	mouttet, etter	obviousness based on multiple references does not require actual, physical substitution of elements	103	2016-05-31	AFFIRMED	508
1392	ratti	Combinations that change principles under which prior art designed to operate may weigh against obviousness	103	2016-05-31	AFFIRMED	509
1393	rose	[T]he size of the article under consideration . . . is not ordinarily a matter of invention.	103	2016-06-06	AFFIRMED	510
1394	seattle box	if use word of degree must determine whether patent's spec provides some standard for measuring degree	112(2)	2016-06-07	AFFIRMED	511
1395	tomtom	Whether preamble claim limitation determined on facts of each case in light of claim + invention described	claim interpretation	2016-06-07	AFFIRMED	512
1396	carnegie	mere possession of apparatus does not teach or suggest all possible processes to which it may be adapted	103	2016-06-08	REVERSED	513
1397	37 C.F.R. 1.3	An attorney is required to conduct [his or her] business with the USPTO with decorum and courtesy.	appellate procedure	2016-06-09	REVERSED	514
1398	schreiber	recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable	claim interpretation	2016-06-10	AFFIRMED	515
1399	griffin	new use for old product not patentable whether an intended use is recited in preamble or a wherein clause	claim interpretation	2016-06-13	AFFIRMED	516
1400	bilski	The machine-or-transformation test is not sole test for deciding if invention is patent-eligible process	101	2016-06-14	REVERSED	517
1401	rice	not design choice if differences between claim and prior art result in difference in function or unexp result	103	2016-06-15	REVERSED	518
1402	brenner	patent is not a hunting license, not reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion	appellate procedure	2016-06-16	AFFIRMED	519
1403	gal	obvious design choice precluded when claimed structure and function it performs are different from prior art	103	2016-06-17	REVERSED	520
1404	kemps	motivation to combine references does not have to be identical to that of applicant to establish obviousness	103	2016-06-20	AFFIRMED	521
1405	unigene	obviousness requires additional showing that POSITA would have selected and combined prior art elements	103	2016-06-20	REVERSED	522
1406	dance	simple prior art rarely characteristic weighing against obviousness of complicated device + added function	103	2016-06-21	AFFIRMED	523
1407	mewherter	if spec doesn't limit "machine readable storage medium" to exclude transitory media includes transitory	101	2016-06-22	AFFIRMED	524
1408	mangosojt	rejecting claim construction that would render a claim term superfluous	claim interpretation	2016-06-23	REVERSED	525
1409	dystar	103 not only whether POSITA motivated to combine prior art but also reasonable expectation of success	103	2016-06-24	REVERSED	526
1410	belden	103 concerns whether POSITA not only could have made but would have been motivated to make combination	103	2016-06-27	REVERSED	527
1411	kao, DBC	for commercial success not every conceivable embodiment, just that what was sold within scope of claims.	103	2016-06-28	REVERSED	528
1412	van wanderham, sporck	Once appellant's solution disclosed, easy to see how to modify and manipulate prior art	103	2016-06-29	REVERSED	529
1413	kotzab	even 103 based on a single prior art reference must have suggestion or motivation to modify the reference.	103	2016-06-30	REVERSED	530
1414	concrete pipe	preponderance of evidence simply requires trier of fact to believe existence more probable than not	103	2016-07-01	AFFIRMED	531
1415	wesslau	using only select portions of multiple references to piece together claimed invention not proper 103 basis	103	2016-07-01	REVERSED	532
1416	deering	the term 'substantially' in this context is used as a term of magnitude.	claim interpretation	2016-07-04	REVERSED	533
1417	epcon	the phrase 'substantially below' signifies language of magnitude	claim interpretation	2016-07-04	REVERSED	534
1418	skvorecz	broadest reasonable interpretation does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.	claim interpretation	2016-07-05	REVERSED	535
1419	lowry, ngai	nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious invention otherwise wld've been obvious	103	2016-07-06	AFFIRMED	536
1420	miller	All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.	claim interpretation	2016-07-07	REVERSED	537
1421	baxter travenol	Anticipation is a question of fact based on a preponderance of the evidence.	102	2016-07-12	REVERSED	538
1422	smithkline	"breadth is not indefiniteness."	112(2)	2016-07-12	REVERSED	539
1423	ultimax	claiming broadly doesn't render claim insolubly ambiguous, nor prevent public from understanding the scope	claim interpretation	2016-07-12	REVERSED	540
1424	voter verified	It is well established that a human being cannot constitute a means within the scope of 112(6)	112(6)	2016-07-14	AFFIRMED	542
1425	griffin	"wherein" clause limits a process claim where clause gives "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"	claim interpretation	2016-07-14	REVERSED	541
1426	life techs	Expectation of success is assessed from perspective of POSITA, at the time the invention was made	103	2016-07-15	REVERSED	545
1427	C.R. Bard	preamble did not limit claim scope where it merely stated intended use or purpose of the invention	claim interpretation	2016-07-15	REVERSED	543
1428	stencel	if statement of intended purpose constitutes limitation determined case by case in view of whole invention	claim interpretation	2016-07-15	REVERSED	546
1429	hogan	Later publications may be used as evidence of the state of the art existing on filing date of an application	prior art	2016-07-15	REVERSED	544
1430	ruskin	finding merely functionally equivalent structure to anticipate the specific structure claimed was error	102	2016-07-18	REVERSED	548
1431	procter & gamble, grabiak	"adequate support in the prior art" for changing structure of prior art compound for 103	prior art	2016-07-18	REVERSED	547
1432	chu	obvious design choice precluded if claimed structure and function it performs different from prior art	103	2016-07-21	REVERSED	549
1433	soverain, ormco	if dependent claim determined obvious broader claim from which it depends necessarily also obvious	103	2016-07-21	REVERSED	551
1434	engel	The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention.	112(1)	2016-07-21	REVERSED	550
1435	newell	[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved.	103	2016-07-22	AFFIRMED	553
1436	new wrinkle	Where result the same steps taken concurrently equivalent not patentable over steps taken successively	claim interpretation	2016-07-22	AFFIRMED	552
1437	kahn	there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning for legal conclusion of obviousness	103	2016-07-25	REVERSED	554
1438	KSR	103 requires establishing that prior art provided POSITA with reason to modify to arrive at claimed invention	103	2016-07-25	REVERSED	555
1439	alice, mayo	claim elements individually or ordered combination transform nature of claim into patent-eligiblility	101	2016-07-27	REVERSED	556
1440	verve	substantially may well satisfy the charge to 'particularly point out and distinctly claim' the invention	112(2)	2016-07-27	REVERSED	557
1441	ariad, rochester	written description req ensures right to exclude scope doesn't overreach inventor's contribution	112(1)	2016-07-28	REVERSED	558
1442	soverain	using hypertext to communicate information no more than routine incorporation of Internet technology	103	2016-08-01	AFFIRMED	559
1443	antor media	prior art cannot anticipate if allegedly anticipatory disclosures cited as prior art are not enabled	102	2016-08-02	REVERSED	560
1444	cortright	PTO's claim terms interpretation not so broad conflicts with meaning of identical terms in analogous art	claim interpretation	2016-08-04	REVERSED	561
1445	Phillips	although spec often describes specific embodiments of invention can't confine claims to those embodiments	claim interpretation	2016-08-04	AFFIRMED	562
1446	cortright, brana	utility in doubt if written desc suggests unbelievable undertaking or implausible scientific prin	101	2016-08-05	AFFIRMED	563
1447	SRI	it is the claims that measure the invention	claim interpretation	2016-08-05	AFFIRMED	564
1448	thorpe	patentability is determined by the actual product made - not the process by which it is made	claim interpretation	2016-08-08	AFFIRMED	565
1449	ehrreich	no 103 if existence of all claimed limitations or any suggestion leading to their combination not shown	103	2016-08-09	REVERSED	566
1450	urbanski	POSITA motivated to pursue desirable properties of one prior art even if meant foregoing benefit of other	103	2016-08-09	AFFIRMED	567
1451	crish	claims were broader notwithstanding use of transitional phrase "consists of" because also used "comprising"	claim interpretation	2016-08-10	AFFIRMED	568
1452	corning glass	effect of preamble determined by reviewing entirety of the Appellants' disclosure	claim interpretation	2016-08-11	REVERSED	569
1453	seid	ornamentation cannot be relied upon to distinguish prior art, but it must have allegedly novel features	103	2016-08-12	REVERSED	570
1454	streck	undue experimentation not simple determination, conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations	103	2016-08-15	REVERSED	571
1455	sciele	A benefit gained from a combination is a motivation to make such a combination.	103	2016-08-16	AFFIRMED	572
1456	metabolite	breadth is not indefiniteness provided skilled artisan reasonably apprised of the meaning of the claim	112(2)	2016-08-17	REVERSED	573
1457	king	informing a patient about the benefits of a drug in no way transforms process of taking the drug with food	claim interpretation	2016-08-18	REVERSED	574
1458	eaton2, electro sci	When limitations in claim body rely upon the preamble, it may act as necessary component	claim interpretation	2016-08-19	REVERSED	575
1459	dunn, shuping	teaching an alternative method does not teach away from the use of a claimed method.	103	2016-08-22	AFFIRMED	576
1460	rice	Changes that do not alter function ordinarily are obvious variations.	103	2016-08-23	AFFIRMED	577
1461	net moneyin	for 102 not enough that prior art includes multiple, distinct teachings artisan might somehow combine	102	2016-08-24	REVERSED	578
1462	lukach	for 102 description of single embodiment of broadly described subject matter is description of invention	102	2016-08-25	AFFIRMED	579
1463	nat'l recovery	The scope of enablement is disclosed in spec plus what is known to POSITA w/o undue experimentation	112(1)