Legal Opinion

Application of Jack W. Hinman

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 11, 1964No. Patent Appeal 7089PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Judge.

The issue here arises under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Its resolution requires a determination of whether the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art were such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The problem in this case is complicated, however, by the highly specialized, technical nature of the claimed subject matter and by the failure of the specification so to disclose the subject matter that we might determine precisely what appellant has invented. A further…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  2. Application of LindbergCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
  3. Application of BorcherdtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
  4. Application of Carl K. Stewart, Deceased, by Mabel R. Stewart, Administratrix, De Bonis NonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
  5. In Re SwitzerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1968
  2. Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API