Legal Opinion
Application of Fritz Hostettler and Eugene F. Cox
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 5, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7564PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
The issue for determination in this appeal 1 from the Board of Appeals is the sufficiency of an affidavit under Rule 131 to remove publications which are conceded to be prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
The invention is evident from the sole claim in the case on appeal here:
4. A process for producing a urethane which comprises reacting (a) a compound having at least one isocyanato group with (b) a compound having at least one alcoholic hydroxyl group, in the presence of a catalytic amount of stannous octoate, wherein the sole reactive groups present in both said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Application of Guido H. Stempel, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- Application of Kenneth B. CoferCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Application of Willie Fong, Wilfred H. Ward, and Harold P. LundgrenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Application of Thomas F. Doumani and Hal C. HuffmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
3Cited by5 opinions
- Application of William C. Rainer, Joseph H. Hitov, Edward M. Redding, Arthur W. Sloan and William D. StewartCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- In re SpillerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Trustees of Columbia University v. Roche Diagnostics GmbHDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002
- Application of Arthur S. Neave, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Elroy M. Gladrow and Paul Thomas ParkerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969