In Re Scott T. Jolley

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the Board’s determination that “rea- sonable everyday problems” excused gaps in the inventive record
• agreeing there was no conception where “there is no evidence in the record that all of the elements of the count resided in the inventor’s mind”
• relying on testimony from three independent witnesses to corroborate an inventor’s diligence
• relying on testimony from three independent witnesses to corroborate an inventor's diligence
• “corroboration is required to support an inventor’s testimony regarding his reasonable diligence in pursuit of the invention”
• “[C]orroboration may be provided by sufficient independent circumstantial evidence, and corroboration of every factual issue contested by the parties is not a requirement of the law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).