Legal Opinion
In re Blondel
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 27, 1974No. Patent Appeal No. 9150PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 of application serial No. 717,012, filed March 28, 1968, for “Phenthiazine Derivatives,” on the ground of obviousness in view of prior art, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse.
The issues are whether the claimed invention is prima facie structurally obvious and, if so, whether there has been a sufficient showing of unexpected advantageous properties to overcome prima facie obviousness.
The Invention
The invention, a new group of chemical compounds, will be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Rudolf WiechertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Klaus Heinz Risse, Ulrich Horlein and Wolfgang Wirth. Application of Ulrich Horlein, Wolfgang Wirth and Klaus Heinz RisseCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Arthur D. Lohr and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re PayneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- In Re John P. ChuppCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- In re BestCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- In re MerchantCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
- In re AlbrechtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.