37 C.F.R. § 1.73
Summary of the invention
A brief summary of the invention indicating its nature and substance, which may include a statement of the object of the invention, should precede the detailed description. Such summary should, when set forth, be commensurate with the invention as claimed and any object recited should be that of the invention as claimed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2005–2006 · leading case: MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 385 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Mass. 2005).
MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 385 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Mass. 2005). “Citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.73 (requiring that the summary of the invention be “commensurate with the invention as claimed”), Becton argues that MBO’s attempt to make its invention more comprehensive than the summary of the invention is improper as a matter of law.”
Wireless Agents LLC v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns Ab, 189 F. App'x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.73 (2004). Therefore, to allow Wireless to claim a keyboard with less than a substantially full set of keys would injure the public’s right “to take the patentee at [his] word.”
Biovail Labs. Int'l SRL v. Impax Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 501 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “01(d) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.73 ) (emphasis added). 13 .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.