Re Robertson (C5P16)
(A) Talks about first, second, third means for sealing, in specification talks in 2 ways
(1) 3 unique fasteners.
(2) Sometimes 3rd means is reusing 1 or 2. When I say 1, 2, 3 you may think I mean separate things, but they could be 1, 2, & 1.
When you read claim it looks like applicant is claiming (1), however in light of the specification it appears he’s claiming (2).
(B) Majority: Finds Wilson patent does not disclose third fastening mechanism of claim 76, rejects idea that patent is invalid because the two fasteners in Wilson were capable of performing the same f() as a third fastener.
(C) Raider Concurrence: Because someone has already claimed a patent for the situation where the 3rd means is either the 1st or 2nd, claim 76 isn’t different from Wilson patent.
(1) To survive this, applicant needed to claim only 3 unique fasteners.
(2) Raider frames argument as one of inherency, really just about claim construction.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Patent Law Cases and are similar to What happened in the case In Re Robertson?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.