CAFC rules against ISCO in superconductor case
In the nonprecedential ISCO v. Conductus and Superconductor Technologies Inc. [STI], the CAFC entered the realm of superconductors.
The CAFC mentioned that this case illustrates the difficulty in reversing a jury's finding of fact, citing to Hayes, 982 F2d 1527, 1532 (CAFC 1992).
Here, there was an issue as to whether or not an ARPA report was prior art, and who bore the burden of proof. The court cited Union Carbide, 724 F2d 1567 (CAFC 1984), for the proposition that the appellant must show the RESULT, not the reasoning, was erroneous. The CAFC also got into issues of nunc pro tunc conception.
The CAFC also got into the issue of motivation in an obviousness rejection, citing to ProMold, 73 F3d 1568.
The CAFC mentioned that this case illustrates the difficulty in reversing a jury's finding of fact, citing to Hayes, 982 F2d 1527, 1532 (CAFC 1992).
Here, there was an issue as to whether or not an ARPA report was prior art, and who bore the burden of proof. The court cited Union Carbide, 724 F2d 1567 (CAFC 1984), for the proposition that the appellant must show the RESULT, not the reasoning, was erroneous. The CAFC also got into issues of nunc pro tunc conception.
The CAFC also got into the issue of motivation in an obviousness rejection, citing to ProMold, 73 F3d 1568.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home