Legal Opinion
In Re Marden
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 25, 1931No. Patent Appeal 2632PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming the decision of the Examiner, refusing to allow claims 9 to 12, inclusive, and 14 to 19, inclusive, on the ground that the claims defined nothing inventive over the prior art, the applicants have appealed here. Claims 9 to 12 are for a method of producing ductile vanadium, and claim 9 is regarded as illustrative of the method claims. Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are article claims and these with claim 9 are as follows:
“9. The method of preparing ductile vanadium which comprises…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
- In Re MardenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
3Cited by16 opinions
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- In Re MerzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.