In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. Norton

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that a party’s withdrawal from an interference did not divest the Board of jurisdiction to decide questions of patentability that were fairly raised and fully developed during the proceeding
• defining R7 in claim 48 instead as “halo, hydroxy, (C1-C6)alkyl, (C3-C6)cycloalkyl, (C1-C6)alkoxy, (C3-C6)cycloalkyloxy, (C1-C6)alkanoyl, (C1-C6)alkanoyloxy, trifluoromethyl, azido, cyano, -N(Rz)C(=O)N(Raa)(Rab), -N(Rz)C(=O)ORac, or NRadRae”
• examining the scope and content of the prior art produces factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence
• defining R7 in claim 48 instead as “halo, hydroxy, (C1-C6)alkyl, (C3-C6)cycloalkyl, (C1-C6)alkoxy, (C3-C6)cycloalkyloxy, (C1-C6)alkanoyl, (C1-C6)alkanoyloxy, trifluoromethyl, azido, cyano, -N(Rz)C(=O)N(Raa)(Rab), -N(Rz)C(=O)ORac, or NRadRae”
• finding substantial evidence for a POSITA’s motivation to combine references even when there was no explicit teaching in the references suggesting that they be combined
• the substantial evidence standard “asks whether a reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s decision”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).