Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
The test in each of Bowen, Stalego, Olin and
Schutte for determining compliance with 35 USC §
135(b) is straight forward: is a limitation of the
patent claim material and if so, is it claimed by
the applicant, expressly or inherently? [Footnote
omitted] Application of this test to different fact
patterns is seen in a comparison of the results in,
for example, (i) Corbett v. Chisholm, supra, where
there was no compliance because a limitation was
material but was neither disclosed nor inherent,
(ii) Bowen v.
- 42 -
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007