Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Angstadt

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 24, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 75-560Published

1DissentMiller, Judge

The controlling issue in this case is: Whether the scope of enablement (represented by the processes disclosed in the specification) is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims, which include the limitation “to form a reaction mixture comprising the corresponding hydroperoxides.”

Although it is evident that by following some of appellants’ examples a reaction mixture will be formed comprising the corresponding hydroperoxides, it does not follow that the scope of enablement is commensurate with the scope of the claims. As this court well said in In re Rainer, 347 F.2d 574,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Application of Joseph D. FisherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  3. Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van VenrooyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  4. Application of Alfred Marzocchi and Richard C. HortonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
  5. Application of Gordon Henry Cook and Peter Arnold MerigoldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971

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

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

Powered by the Exa API