Cole v. Chevron Chemical Co.-Oronite Division

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that enablement must be judged in light of the state of the art at the time of filing
• stating that enablement is determined as of the effective filing date of the patent
• noting that the PTO’s concern that allowance of the claims might lead to enforcement efforts against later developers is “both irrelevant and unwarranted” because “[t]he business of the PTO is patentability, not infringement”
• finding that claim 15 was only entitled to a 1967 filing date where “the disclosure to support claim 15 appears in the 1953 and the 1967 applications, but not in the 1956 application”
• noting that requiring such specific disclosures would “impose an impossible burden on inventors”
• stating that “Courts should not treat the same legal question, enable- ment under § 112, in one manner with respect to the appli- cant and in a different manner with respect to the examiner.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).