Legal Opinion
Application of Andrew John Manson
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 25, 1964No. Patent Appeal 7140PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The single legal issue presented by this appeal is whether an applicant for a patent on a new process for making a known compound must establish a utility for such compound, in order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 204(b) preparatory to having an interference declared between his application and a prior patent.
It is unnecessary to encumber this opinion with any of the technical details of the process covered by appealed claims 2 and 3 of appellant’s application.1 These claims stand rejected as “obviously fully met” by a patent to Ringold et al.2 Appealed claim 3 corresponds…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. ShabicaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- Application of BremnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Application of Michael Mojzesz SzwarcCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Gunther Wilke and Werner PfohlCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Isenstead v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1957
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Brenner v. MansonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Application of David Neville Kirk and Vladimir PetrowCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Copease Manufacturing Co. v. Cormac Photocopy Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1965
- In re MattoxCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Application of Alick Isaacs and Jean LindenmannCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.