Legal Opinion
In re Schaumann
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 23, 1978No. Appeal No. 77-598PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALMOND, Senior Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board), one member dissenting, affirming the rejection of claims 2-4 of appellants’ application serial No. 336,567, filed April 17, 1975, for “l-(3-Hydroxyphenyl)-2-Aminopropane Compounds and Chemotherapeutic Compositions.” We affirm.
The Invention
The claims on appeal are drawn to a single chemical compound, and certain pharmacologically compatible salts thereof, disclosed as being effective in increasing peripheral blood pressure in mammals without causing a significant pressure…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BanderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Harold G. Petering and Harry H. FallCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumüller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BänderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- In re ArkleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Application of Max J. KalmCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Envirotech Corporation v. Al George, Incorporated and Monosep, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Structural Rubber Products Company v. Park Rubber Company and International Metals and MacHines Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.