Jerry Gechter, Robert L. Pokress, Jeffrey A. Fried, and G. Wayne Andrews v. Wayne A. Davidson and Diana S. Winter

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the board’s reasoning must be set out with sufficient specificity to enable this court, “without resort to speculation,” to effectively evaluate an anticipation rejection
• holding Case: 22-1230 Document: 32 Page: 8 Filed: 05/10/2023 8 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. that “the Board’s opinion lacks the level of specificity nec- essary for [] review” because the Board’s decision addressed only one of several limitations in the claim
• vacating and remanding where the Board’s opinion, inter alia, lacked a claim construction
• in an interference, remanding to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for lack of a claim construction analysis as well as conclusory anticipation findings
• “Necessary findings must be expressed with sufficient particularity to enable our court, without resort to speculation, to understand the reasoning of the Board.”
• “The same rule governs when a conclusion on a crucial issue of law is omitted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).