Jerry F. Connell, Gary F. Burns and Conelco, Inc., Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., a Corporation, Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• prefacing quoted discussion of relationship between anticipation and obviousness with “it is never necessary to so hold”
• imposing sanctions for a frivolous appeal when appellant solely relied on arguments made below without identifying any legal error
• “the right to exclude recognized in a patent is but the essence of the concept of property”
• “Though it is never necessary to so hold, a disclosure that anticipates under § 102 also renders the claim invalid under § 103, for “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness”
• “[T]he need to determine obviousness presumes anticipation is lacking”
• “[T]he need to determine obviousness presumes anticipation is lacking.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).