Lawrence B. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that claims directed to a “distinct invention from that disclosed in the specification” do not satisfy the written description requirement
• explaining that the necessary support may be provided through the “words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention”
• explaining that the necessary support may be provided through the “words, structures, figures, dia- grams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention”
• explaining that for purposes of priority, a prior application must describe “the invention, with all its claimed limitations,” rather than “that which makes it obvious.”
• noting that “the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, so long as the speci- fication “contain[s] an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter”
• noting that a disclosure that satisfies the written description require- ment must describe the claimed invention—“with all its claimed limitations”—“in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor [possessed what is claimed]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).