Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli v. Paola Mantegazza Pomelli

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the patent was not enabled where the claims covered Type 1 and Type 2 aluminum coating, but the specification only described use of Type 2 aluminum coating and warned that Type 1 aluminum coating caused coating problems
• explaining that “when an object of the preposition ‘up to’ is nonnumeric, the most natural meaning is to exclude the object”
• finding that a patent calling for coating of stainless steel with metal “consisting essentially of aluminum” constituted a closed-ended limiting statement
• explaining that the basic and novel properties of the invention are defined by the goal of the invention and what distinguishes the invention from the prior art
• looking to the specification to determine that “good wetting is the goal of the invention as well as what distinguishes it from the prior art.”
• engaging in a similar claim construction analysis, and then going on to assess the evidence regarding enablement under the correct construction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).