In Re Edgar L. Stencel

How courts have described this case

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

• “[a]ppellant points out that the driver as claimed is indeed limited as to structure, the limiting structure being defined by the structure of the collar.”
• “[t]he claimed invention relates to a driver that is adapted to set a joint with a particular threaded collar.”
• “Stencel is not inhibited from claiming his driver, limited by the statement of purpose, and further defined by the remaining clauses at issue, when there is no suggestion in the prior art of a driver having the claimed structure and purpose.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).