In re Roberts

How courts have described this case

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

• finding § 112, p 6 (then p 3) applicable to claim element which recited \reducing the coefficient of friction to below about 0.40.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Construction, and Owen E. Perry, Sanctioned Party-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1999-04-01· cited 62×
• In re Bergy
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1979-03-29· cited 49×
• In re Johnson
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1977-06-16· cited 15×
• Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc.
  D. Connecticut· 1977-12-02· cited 9×
• Caterpillar Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp.
  N.D. Indiana· 1996-12-30· cited 2×
• Systematic Tool & MacHine Co. v. Walter Kidde & Co.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1976-03-19· cited 1×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Application of Carl F. Swinehart and Marko Sfiligoj
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-04-01· cited 47×
• In re Sponnoble
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1969-01-16· cited 41×
• Application of Warren C. Conover
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1962-07-18· cited 17×