United States Federal Circuit

In claims based on patents which inhibit sprout growth on vegetables, a thesis did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of anticipation, and substantial evidence existed supporting a jury's conclusion of nonobviousness.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/04/2002
• Published 09/04/2002

Judges

• LOURIE, Circuit Judge., Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Edgar R. Cataxinos, Traskbritt, P.C., of Salt Lake City, UT, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief were William S. Britt, H. Dickson Burton, and Devin R. Jensen.


• For Appellees:
  
• Elizabeth R. Jones, The Beatty Law Firm, P.C., of Denver, CO, argued for defendant-appellee.   Of counsel on the brief was Steven B. Andersen, Holland & Hart, L.L.C., of Boise, ID.