Legal Opinion
In re Weber
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 30, 1978No. Appeal No. 77-622PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This appeal is from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 “as being improper Markush claims [1] and misjoinder under 35 USC 121.”[2] The board also dismissed, for want of jurisdiction, the appeal of claims 8-13, 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23 in that the claims “were withdrawn from *456consideration since they were directed to non-elected inventions.” We reverse and remand.
Invention
The invention relates to cyclic diamine derivatives which possess the common property of psychotherapeutic…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BanderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Leo L. HengeholdCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. WoodwardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- In re HaasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- In re SichertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Duphar International Research B.V.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- R2 Medical Systems, Inc. v. Katecho, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1996
- Mullins v. Kaiser Steel Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1979
- Godtfredsen v. BannerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1980
- Godtfredsen v. BannerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.