Federal Circuit· 6/30/2000

In Re Werner Kotzab

Citations

217 F.3d 1365
55 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1313
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15504
2000 WL 892795

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).

Judges: Lourie, Gajarsa, Linn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

70 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.