In Re Michael Geisler, Rudolf Kotter-Faulhaber, Susanne Wuerz and Michael Jung

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that generally, in the context of obviousness, “it is not in- ventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”
• stating that a prima facie case may be rebutted “by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range ” (emphases added) (internal quotations omitted)
• observing that “a prima facie case of obviousness can be rebutted if the applicant (1) 10 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. can establish ‘the existence of unexpected properties in the range claimed’ or (2
• affirming finding of obviousness where range in patent, 100–600, overlapped with range of 50–100 disclosed in prior art
• finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of “substantially improved results”
• requiring unexpected results for the claimed range to be established by factual evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).