In re Robertson
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
169 F.3d 743 (1999)
Facts
Anthony Robertson (plaintiff) applied for a patent on an improved fastening system for diapers that made disposal more convenient. Claim 76 of the patent application provided for three mechanical fastening means—two to attach the diaper to the wearer and one to secure the diaper for disposal. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examiner and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the board) rejected Robertson’s application on the ground of anticipation by an existing patent (the Wilson patent). Although the Wilson patent provided for only two fastening means, the board held that one of the two fastening means could effectively operate as a third fastening means for disposal purposes. Thus, the board held, claim 76 was anticipated under the principle of inherency. Robertson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Friedman, J.)
Concurrence (Rader, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
