In Re Werner Kotzab

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a finding of obviousness “cannot be predicated on the mere identification in [the prior art] of individual components of claimed limitations”
• “Substantial evidence is something less than the weight of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla of evidence.”
• “Particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner claimed.” (emphasis added)
• “[Particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner claimed.”
• “[P]articular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner claimed.”
• “[T]he very ease with which the invention can be understood may prompt one to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher.” (internal quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).