Bell, C., Aplt. v. DOC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that this is a proper formulation of the standard for determining whether a patent fails the “written description” standard
• noting that some experimentation does not eliminate a finding of enablement, so long as the necessary experimentation is not unduly extensive
• noting that a potential option for construing the claims was to construe the term “broader than the disclosure of the earliest application”
• explaining that “‘[t]he function of the description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him.’”
• discussing enablement, written description, and new matter in the context of priority to earlier applications
• “Although styled as a cross-appeal, this court treats this claim construction issue as an alternative ground for affirming the judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).