In Re John M. Corkill

How courts have described this case

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

• “A greater than expected result is an eviden- tiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of the obvi- ousness vel non of the claims at issue.” (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52 (1966))
• “Although [the inventor] declared that it cannot be predicted how any candidate will work in a detergent composition, but that it must be tested, this does not overcome [the prior art’s] teaching that hydrated zeolites will work.”
• “Although [the inventor] de- clared that it cannot be predicted how any candidate will work in a detergent composition, but that it must be tested, this does not overcome [the prior art]’s teaching that hy- drated zeolites will work.”
• “Although [the inventor] de- clared that it cannot be predicted how any candidate will work in a detergent composition, but that it must be tested, this does not overcome [the prior art]’s teaching that hy- drated zeolites will work.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).