ILLINOIS

v.

WISEMAN

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

• Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
  …under § 112. Doubtless the question will be fully considered and answered by the district court on remand, applying the guidance in Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F. 2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed.Cir.1986), cert. denied 480 U.S. 947, 107 S.Ct. 1606, 94 L.Ed.2d 792 (1987), (claim is distinct if those of ordinary skill in the art understand its meaning) in light of all the evidence, including that cited to us by Kingsdown as reflecting Hollister’s lack of difficulty with the "enc…
• Grubb v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (successor-in-interest to First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Okla. City), 868 F.2d 1151 (10th Cir. 1989)
  …10b-5 flexibly, not technically. See Superintendent of Ins. v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 12, 92 S.Ct. 165, 169, 30 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971); Windon Third Oil & Gas Drilling Partnership v. FDIC, 805 F. 2d 342, 346 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947, 107 S.Ct. 1605, 94 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987). The remedial purpose of the rule should not be defeated by taking a technical, unrealistic view of what happened in a case. Norris, 719 F. 2d at 261; Heyman, 356 F.Supp. at 966; see also Less v. Lurie, 789 F.…
• SUN Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc., 872 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
  …ovided in § 102(e). Both sides appear to have confused interference practice under § 102(g) with prior art status under § 102(e). See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F. 2d 1367, 1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947, 107 S.Ct. 1606, 94 L.Ed.2d 792 (1987) (discussing determination of priority of invention under § 102(g), and noting that “§ 102(g) prior art can be used for § 103”, id. at 1371 n. 1, 231 USPQ 84 n. 1). The Mouat reference, as the district court hel…