Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments Company Anchor | green | “adequate description of the invention guards against the inventor's overreaching by insisting that he recount his invention in such detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed within his original creation.” | 9 |
| 2 | In Re Jacques Gosteli, Ivan Ernest and Robert B. Woodward | green | “the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.