Legal Opinion · Dissent

Application of Alexander R. Surrey

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 15, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7536Published

1DissentSmith, Judge

The statutory commands of 35 U.S.C. § 112 each refer to “the invention” for which a patent is sought. Here the persistent failure to determine and articulate “the invention” which is in issue, as expressly required by section 112, has compounded the confusion for the court. Appealed claim 17 is directed to “a compound” having a formula which by reason of its statement in Markush form actually encompasses what the solicitor’s brief refers to as “a number of compounds of diverse structure running into six or seven figures.” However, “the invention” with which we are here concerned may be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Chemical Paint Co. v. Firestone Steel Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
  2. Application of Chester John Cavallito and Allan Poe GrayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  3. Application of OppenauerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  4. Application of Samuel GrantCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API