Legal Opinion

Application of Lemuel D. Wooddy, Jr., and William D. Moore

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 14, 1964No. Patent Appeal 7203PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ALMOND, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals which held appellants’ claims unpatentable because of a defective disclosure in the patent application. 1 The board found the disclosure both insufficient under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and apparently inoperative.

The invention relates to a method for creating a large cavern within a subterranean salt formation. The cavern may subsequently be used for storing liquid products such as petroleum. Prior to appellants’ invention, cavities had been formed in the salt formations (called “domes”) by water elution techniques wherein water…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re ChilowskyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  2. In re StorrsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Application of Hampton G. Corneil and Andrew D. Suttle, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  2. Application of Hampton G. Corneil and Andrew D. Suttle, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  3. Application of Jacques Georges PottierCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  4. Application of Jean Maurice GazaveCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  5. Gould v. HellwarthCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973

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

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

Powered by the Exa API