Application of Oliver Kenneth Kelley

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that double inclusion of an element is objectionable when “separation of their functions ... require[s] an arbitrary structural division”
• explaining that “[w]e see no reason why a single structural element ... which performs two separate functions, cannot support a claim reciting broadly these two separate functions”
• stating that two claim terms may read upon the same physical structure
• stating that two claim terms may read upon the same physical structure
• noting that two limitations hypothetically can read on the same structure
• cautioning against automatic reliance on a rule against double inclusion but noting, instead, that the governing consideration is “what is a reasonable construction of the language of the claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).