Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Panduit Corp.

"Like all legal conclusions, that under § 103 rests on a factual evidentiary foundation.” | "Like all legal conclusions, that under Sec. 103 rests on a factual evidentiary foundation." | a prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the invention in suit” | “Though technology has burgeoned, the patent system is not limited to sophisticated technologies ... difficult for judges to understand and foreclosed to those who make less mysterious inventions a judge can understand” | "Though technology has burgeoned, the patent system is not limited to sophisticated technologies ... difficult for judges to understand and foreclosed to those who make less mysterious inventions a judge can understand" | "Before answering Graham's ‘content’ inquiry, it must be known whether a patent or publication is in the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” | it is error to “focus on isolated minutiae in a prior art patent while disregarding its scope, i.e., its entire disclosure, and how its disclosed structure works” | delay of a year or more gives prima facie merit to speedy trial claim | “ ‘In appraising an inventor’s contribution to the art ... the most reliable test is to look at the situation before and after it appears’ ” | delay of a year or more gives prima facie merit to speedy trial claim | in determining obviousness, a prior patent must be considered in its entirety