Legal Opinion

In re Wilder

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided October 13, 1977No. Patent Appeal No. 76-706PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BALDWIN, Judge.

This appeal is from the April 30, 1976 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection of claim 1, the sole claim in application serial No. 249,118,1 filed May 1, 1972, for “N-(1,4-Dimethylamyl)-N'-Phenyl-P-Phenylenediamine,” as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Biswell.2 We affirm.

The Invention

Appellant claims a single chemical compound which is useful as an antidegradant in rubber and has minimal toxicity to human skin. As appellant points out in his specification, there is a long-term art recognition that N-alkyl-N…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Application of Paul E. HochCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  2. Application of Gene R. WilderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  3. Application of Robert R. Mod, Evald L. Skau, Sara P. Fore, Frank C. Magne, Arthur F. Novak, Harold P. Dupuy, Jesse R. Ortego, and Mary J. FisherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
  2. In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
  3. OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
  4. In re MayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
  5. Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007

13 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