Legal Opinion

Application of David Neville Kirk and Vladimir Petrow

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 10, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7522PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 11, 25, 26, 28, 29, 39, 41 and 45 in appellants’ application1 entitled “1-Dehydro-6-Methyl Steroid Compounds.”

Each claim defines a specific steroid compound, claim 11 relating to a compound of the spirostane series; claims 25, 26, 28, 29 and 45 to compounds of the androstane series; and claims 39 and 41 to compounds of the pregnane series. It is unnecessary to reproduce any claim since the nature of the compounds will become apparent.

The Patent Office rejected all claims for failure…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Brenner v. MansonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. ShabicaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  3. Application of Franz Bergel and John Albert StockCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
  4. Application of Carl Peter KrimmelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
  5. Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. TrevesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. In Re Miguel F. Brana, Jose M.C. Berlanga, Marina M. Moset, Erich Schlick and Gerhard KeilhauerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
  2. Kawai v. MetlesicsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  3. Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals RoesslerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  4. Messerschmidt v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
  5. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API