In Re Mouttet

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that even “inferior com- bination[s]” of prior art may be appropriately considered in obviousness inquiry
• explaining substantial evidence is “relevant evi- dence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”
• “A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.”
• “[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”
• “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physi- cal substitution of elements.”
• \The scope and content of the prior art ... are determinations of fact.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).