Legal Opinion
Application of Robert L. Clarke
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 10, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7489PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
The issue in this appeal from the Board of Appeals is whether Rule 131 affidavits that show certain facts about species of a claimed genus, and that also allege conception of the genus, are sufficient to antedate indirectly a reference disclosing a different species within the claimed genus. This issue arises with respect to generic claims 1 and 2 in appellant’s application serial No. 836,911, filed August 31, 1959, for “1,2-Diacylhexahy-dropyridazines and Preparation Thereof.”
The claims read:
1. 1,2-Diacylhexahydropyridazine in which each acyl is -CO-R wherein R is a member of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Application of Guido H. Stempel, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- In Re SteenbockCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
- In re ShokalCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- In Re SollCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- In re WahlforssCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1941
3Cited by21 opinions
- Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Application of Lynn B. Wakefield and Frederick C. FosterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- In Re Cornelius Mulder and Henricus Elisabeth Jozef WulmsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Application of Earl Phillip Moore. Application of Harold M. Pitt and Harry BenderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of William C. Rainer, Joseph H. Hitov, Edward M. Redding, Arthur W. Sloan and William D. StewartCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.