In Re Gray

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 closed transition term excludes elements not specified in the claim
• because the chemical composition claim used the term “consists” it was “therefore drawn to an alloy of silver and indium without other elements”
• because the chemical composition claim used the term \consists\ it was \therefore drawn to an alloy of silver and indium without other elements\
• “Claim 4 uses the term ‘consists’ and is therefore drawn to an alloy of silver and indium without other elements.”
• the use of the claim term \consists\ is limited to the claim's enumerated alloy metals without other elements, unlike the term \comprising\ which permits the inclusion of other metals than those \claimed\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. United States Gypsum Company and L&w Supply Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1999-11-01· cited 105×
• Norian Corporation v. Stryker Corporation, Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2004-04-06· cited 70×
• Cias, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-09-27· cited 68×
• Lampi Corporation v. American Power Products, Inc., Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2000-09-28· cited 62×
• Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-08-04· cited 42×
• In re Herz
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1976-07-22· cited 9×
• AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine
  S.D. Ohio· 2002-07-30· cited 6×
• Application of James F. Hunter
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1961-05-05· cited 4×
• Raytheon Mfg. Co. v. General Electric Co.
  N.D. New York· 1940-06-12· cited 4×