In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), Intervenor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)
• noting that the presence or absence of- literal support in the specification is not determinative
• explaining that the way the splice donor site is moved is by “ma[king]a design that happens to include the same nucleotides” and “the purpose of that is so that this splice donor ... would direct a splicing event” that spliced out all of the deleterious ATGs
• “The function of the description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).