In Re Denis Rouffet, Yannick Tanguy and Frederic Berthault

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences cannot simply invoke “the high level of skill in the art” as proof positive of its findings
• “Absent any proper motivation to combine part of Levine’s teachings with Freeburg’s satellite system, the rejection of Rouffet’s claim over these references was improper and is reversed.”
• \[T]he Board must explain the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the references and to combine them to render the claimed invention obvious.\
• applying this principle to motivation to combine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).