Skip to main content
· 7/1/1965

Application of Simon L. Ruskin

Citations

  • 347 F.2d 843
  • 52 C.C.P.A. 1557

How courts have described this case

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

  • Even where a prior art device is the “functional equivalent” of a patented product, it does not anticipate unless it discloses the structure required by the asserted claims.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Worley, Rich, Martin, Smith, Almond

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.