context: Whatever thin thread of support a jury might find in the decoy-molecule hypothetical simply cannot bear the weight of the vast scope of these generic claims.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 541 F.3d 1126, 1126
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that the narrow description of the E. coli polA gene did not adequately support a broad claim to the gene from any bacterial source
citation_a.sentence: See LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1345 (holding that “[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand” the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it); Reiffin, 214 F.3d at 1345-46 (noting that the “scope of the right to exclude” must not “overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification”); Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171 (“Claiming all DNA[s] that achieve a result without defining what means will do so is not in compliance with the description requirement; it is an attempt to preempt the future before it has arrived.”); cf. Carnegie Mellon, 541 F.3d at 1126 (holding that the narrow description of the E. coli polA gene did not adequately support a broad claim to the gene from any bacterial source).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 424 F.3d 1345, 1345
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand" the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it
citation_b.sentence: See LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1345 (holding that “[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand” the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it); Reiffin, 214 F.3d at 1345-46 (noting that the “scope of the right to exclude” must not “overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification”); Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171 (“Claiming all DNA[s] that achieve a result without defining what means will do so is not in compliance with the description requirement; it is an attempt to preempt the future before it has arrived.”); cf. Carnegie Mellon, 541 F.3d at 1126 (holding that the narrow description of the E. coli polA gene did not adequately support a broad claim to the gene from any bacterial source).