Matter of Raymond Castro v. Dora Schriro

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that courts review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s interpretation of claim language de novo
• explaining that prior art “must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests” (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
• explaining that prior art “must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests” (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
• “[T]he specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term and usually, it is dispositive.”
• “Claim construction seeks to ascribe 15 to claim terms the meaning a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have 16 given them.”
• “Claim construction seeks to ascribe 15 to claim terms the meaning a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have 16 given them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).