holding “the ALJ’s conclusions are not supported by substantial 20 evidence” when an RFC is formulated without the findings of a physician
How later courts described this case
- holding “the ALJ’s conclusions are not supported by substantial 20 evidence” when an RFC is formulated without the findings of a physician
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
L. HAND, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part). I dissent as to claim 3 of the first Palmer patent, which seems to me not infringed, so that I have not considered its validity. I think that the defendant has no channels *448 at all; certainly not four channels, each containing two terminals. Moreover, it seems to me that the claim demands that all the terminals of one series shall have contact surfaces, which they have not. I can see no room in such a patent for the doctrine of equivalents. Otherwise I concur.