Legal Opinion
In Re Hillis
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided May 21, 2012No. 2011-1401, 2011-1402Unpublished
1Per curiam
Appellants W. Daniel Hillis, Roderick A. Hyde, Nathan P. Myhrvold, Clarence T. Tegreene, and Lowell L. Wood, Jr. (collectively “Hillis”) appeal a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”), rejecting all pending claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/386,211 (“the '211 application”) for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ex parte Hillis (“'211 Board Decision ”), No. 2010-000974, 2010 WL 3827101 (B.P.A.I. Sept. 29, 2010). Hillis also appeals a Board decision rejecting all pending claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/386,227 (“the '227 application”) on the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/s, Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc. And Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., and Hubert J.P. SchoemakerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- In Re Stephen E. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Application of Alfred Marzocchi and Richard C. HortonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.