Connection lost
Server error
IN RE COLEMAN Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Inventors claimed a chemical process using a specific starting material. The court held the process obvious because its parameters overlapped with prior art, and evidence of unexpected results at one point in the claimed range was insufficient to rebut obviousness across the entire range.
Legal Significance: This case establishes two key patent law rules: (1) a starting material is a relevant process limitation if it affects the process itself, and (2) evidence of unexpected results used to rebut obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
IN RE COLEMAN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Appellants (Coleman) sought a patent for an improved process for sulfonating hydrocarbon gas oil to produce petroleum sulfonates used in oil recovery. The invention aimed to control for desirable monosulfonation while avoiding undesirable polysulfonation. The claims specified several process parameters, including the composition of the starting hydrocarbon feedstock (e.g., its aliphatic-to-aromatic proton ratio), the concentration of the sulfonating agent (SO3), and the use of ethylene dichloride (EDC) as a diluent. The prior art, primarily the Marisic patent, disclosed a similar sulfonation process using turbulent mixing and SO3 diluted in EDC. Marisic taught that its process failed at a high SO3 concentration of 15 wt.%. Coleman’s claimed SO3 concentration range overlapped with Marisic’s operable range but also included the 15 wt.% level. To show non-obviousness, Coleman submitted an affidavit (the Ossip affidavit) demonstrating that their process, using their specific feedstock, successfully operated at the 15 wt.% SO3 level where Marisic had failed. The Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding the feedstock limitation immaterial.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a claimed chemical process obvious when its parameters overlap with the prior art, even if the claim recites a specific starting material that yields an unexpected result at a single point within the claimed range?
The rejection of the claims was affirmed. The court held that although Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culp
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a claimed chemical process obvious when its parameters overlap with the prior art, even if the claim recites a specific starting material that yields an unexpected result at a single point within the claimed range?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the 'commensurate in scope' doctrine, requiring that evidence of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Legal Rule
For a process claim, a starting material is a relevant limitation in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in two stages. First, it established that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo conseq
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A specific starting material is a relevant limitation in a process
