Application of Lyle B. Borst

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that abandoned applications may be “evi dence of conception” but “furnish no evidence that the processes or things they describe were ever made or used anywhere” (citation omitted)
• discussing that a prior art reference must be sufficient to enable one with ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention in order to be considered legal prior art for anticipation purposes
• “[T]he criterion should be whether the disclosure is sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to reduce the disclosed invention to practice.”
• “the disclosure must be such as will give possession of the invention to the person of ordinary skill. Even the act of publication or the fiction of constructive reduction to practice will not suffice if the disclosure does not meet this standard.”
• “The mere fact that a disclosure is contained in a patent or application and thus ‘constructively’ reduced to practice, or that it is found in a printed publication, does not make the disclosure itself any more meaningful to those skilled in the art (and thus, ultimately, to the public

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).