Legal Opinion
In Re Mitchell R. Swartz
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided November 8, 2000No. 00-1108PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
Mitchell R. Swartz appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), Appeal No. 94-2920, affirming the examiner’s final rejection of claims 25-48 of application Serial No. 07/760,970 for lack of operability or utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. We affirm the Board’s decision.
The questions of whether a specification provides an enabling disclosure under § 112, ¶ 1, and whether an application satisfies the utility requirement of § 101 are closely related. Process…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Brooktree Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Process Control Corporation v. V. Hydreclaim Corporation, Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- In Re Miguel F. Brana, Jose M.C. Berlanga, Marina M. Moset, Erich Schlick and Gerhard KeilhauerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cfmt, Inc. And Cfm Technologies, Inc. v. Yieldup International Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Arjun Singh v. Anthony J. BrakeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- In re SwartzCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- In Re HillisCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.