Interconnect Planning Corporation v. Thomas E. Feil, Robert O. Carpenter, v Band Systems, Inc., and Turret Equipment Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring a “suggestion in the prior art that the components be combined as they were”
• explaining that the PTO’s decision on a patent’s validity “is never binding on the court,” which has an “obligation . . . to reach an independent conclusion” (quoting Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 755 F.2d 1549, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1985))
• vacating summary judgment of invalidity because the district court “relied on the identical references that had been before the reissue examiners, and ... reached a different conclusion of law”
• “IPC’s view is incorrect that the PTO’s [reissue] decision must be given controlling weight .... ”
• invention must be viewed not with blueprint drawn by inventor, but in light of state of art at time
• “When prior art references require selective combination by the court to render obvious a subsequent invention, there must be some reason for the combination other than the hindsight gleaned from the invention itself”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).