Application of Arthur H. Ahlbrecht
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
ALMOND, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, refusing to accord claim 7 in appellant's application 1 the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and sustaining the rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by the intervening patents to Langerak et al. 2 and Fasick et al. 3 Claims 2-6 in the application stand allowed. We affirm.
The Invention
The esters of the claim in issue may be represented by the formula:
wherein R is a member of the group consisting of hydrogen and the methyl…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- 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 Paul v. Brower and John F. FuzekCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
3Cited by25 opinions
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Ralston Purina Company v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. JanoskiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.