In Re John A. Donohue

How courts have described this case

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

• sustaining an anticipation rejection over a reference disclosing a compound and other references disclosing sufficient information to make that compound
• stating patent is invalid for anticipation where “each limitation of a claim [can] be found in a single reference, practice, or device”
• it is not “necessary that an invention disclosed in a publication shall actually have been made in order to satisfy the enablement requirement”
• “It is not, however, necessary that an invention disclosed in a publication shall have actually been made in order to satisfy the en-ablement requirement.”
• \It is well settled that prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) must sufficiently describe the claimed invention to have placed the public in possession of it.\
• “Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication’s description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).