Application of Alick Isaacs and Jean Lindenmann
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1DissentAlmond, Judge
J., joins).
I disagree with the view of this case taken by the majority. Before this utility question can be properly considered, appellants’ disclosure should be consulted to determine just exactly what the asserted utility is. I think the following passage of the disclosure, which *893incidentally was not referred to by the majority, is as close as appellants come to stating a utility:
The value of the viral interfering substance is that, whereas vaccines are not only very specific in their action but do not generally confer immunity upon the subject for some two weeks, Interferon is active…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re NovakCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Robert R. CitronCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- Application of Walter Lorenz and Richard WeglerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Andrew John MansonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964