Holthoefer v. Holthoefer

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a prior art reference may be enabling “even if [its] author or inventor did not actually make or reduce to practice [the disclosed] subject matter.” (citation omitted)
• rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the prior art
• “[Recognition by a [PHOSITA] before the critical date ... is not required to show anticipation by inherency.”
• “[T]his court rejects the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the prior art.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).