Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

In re Kubin

Finding patent invalid where an inherent benefit "is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims . . . but rather a property necessarily present" when the other limitations are satisfied

Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

Finding that "[d]ue to breaks in the chain of priority," the "[parent] patent [was] prior art for some of the asserted claims"

In re Gurley

Upholding obviousness finding where patent was directed to one of two alternative resins disclosed in prior art reference, even though reference described claimed resin as "inferior."

Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner

Holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim

In re Baxter Travenol Labs

Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

In re Clay

Concluding that a reference was not reasonably pertinent where a PHOSITA "would not reasonably have expected to solve the [relevant] problem ... by considering" that reference

In re Icon Health

Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.

In Inphi, we confirmed that the written description requirement is satisfied where " ‘the essence of the original disclosure’ conveys the necessary information—‘regardless of how it’ conveys such information, and regardless of whether the disclosure's ‘words [a]re open to different interpretation[s].’ "

Section 112 - Specification

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board