Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Application of Robert R. Mod, Evald L. Skau, Sara P. Fore, Frank C. Magne, Arthur F. Novak, Harold P. Dupuy, Jesse R. Ortego, and Mary J. Fisher

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 10, 1969No. Patent Appeal 8065PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

The sole issue here is whether the Board of Appeals committed reversible error in sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, 20, 21 and 23 1 as unpatentable over Bousquet 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The invention relates to certain morpholides of fatty acids which, the specification states, exhibit antimicrobial 3 activity against a variety of microorganisms such as bacteria, yeast and molds. Claim 23 is illustrative:

23. A member selected from the group consisting of 4-(6-hydroxyca-proyl) morpholine, 4-decanoyl-2, 6-dimethylmorpholine, 4-cleoyl-2,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Application of HenzeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  2. Application of Rene De Montmollin and Henri RiatCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  3. Application of Alan B. HuellmantelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  4. In re HackCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  5. Application of Leslie Frederick WigginsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. In Re Diane M. DillonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
  2. In re MayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
  3. Monsanto Company v. Rohm and Haas CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Application of John R. StemniskiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
  5. In re MurchCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972

10 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