Legal Opinion

In re Moore

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided July 1, 1971No. 8437; No. 8479PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, Judge

These two appeals from separate decisions of the Patent Office Board of Appeals were argued on the same day, considered together and will *1343be disposed of in a single opinion. The issue we find determinative in both appeals is whether an antedating affidavit must include therein a showing of prior discovery of a utility for a particular chemical compound, in order to be effective in removing a reference against a claim to that compound or the method for its production, where the reference describes the compound and how to make it but fails to disclose a utility therefor, no utility being…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brenner v. MansonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Application of Guido H. Stempel, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  3. Application of Eric D. BrownCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
  4. Application of Robert J. HarryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
  5. Application of David Neville Kirk and Vladimir PetrowCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re WafmouthCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  2. In Re Enhanced Security Research, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
  3. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API