Kilmer v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[g]iven the considerable difference between the claimed range and the range in the prior art, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the prior art describes the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate this limitation of the claim.”
• finding 0.001 to 1.0 percent range did not disclose a 0.1 to 5.0 percent range
• “The disclosure is only that of a range, not a specific temperature in that range.”
• the disclosure of a temperature range of 150 C-350 C was not a specific disclosure of the range of 100 C-500 C
• cit- ing Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
• “Because there is no suggestion that the intrinsic evidence defines the term ‘catalyst,’ one may look to technical dictionaries for assistance in determining that term's meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).