Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Application of Christian Zickendraht and Arthur Buehler

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided September 27, 1963No. Patent Appeal 6873PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

Here the Board of Appeals has held that appellants have made but one patentable invention, therefore to grant the single claim involved in appellants’ application1 entitled “New Metalliferous Azo Dyestuffs” would involve “double patenting.” Appellants argue that the instant claim is patentably distinct over the reference and is, therefore, entitled to patent protection.

The application relates to metallized azo dyestuffs prepared by reacting a cobalt or chromium-yielding reagent with certain monoazo dyestuff, such that two molecules of the latter are joined or complexed per…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re CopemanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
  2. Application of Jean Druey and Paul SchmidtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  3. In re OckertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  4. In re WardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
  5. In the Matter of the Application of Sylvan O. GreenleeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. In Re Paolo LongiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
  2. General Foods Corporation v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle MbhCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
  3. Application of Edwin H. Land and Howard G. RogersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
  4. OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
  5. In Re Leonard Kaplan and Wellington Epler WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API