Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Patent Office “bears the initial burden of showing a prima facie case of obviousness”
• affirming anticipation determination where a person of skill in the art would \at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination\
• “Anticipation under 35 U-.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact[.] ... We review -the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence .... ”
• find- ing enablement of class of five metals in combination with one of three potential coatings
• “[A] reference can anticipate a claim even if it d[oes] not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).