Legal Opinion
In re Parameswar Sivaramakrishnan
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided April 1, 1982No. Appeal No. 81-607PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board), sustaining the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 7, 13, and 18. We affirm.
The Invention
The appealed claims are directed to a composition comprising the combination of an aromatic polycarbonate resin with a carboxylic acid metallic salt, the addition of which is said to enhance the resin’s hydrolytic stability.1 Claim 18 is illustrative:
18. A moldable aromatic polycarbonate consisting essentially of:
a) an aromatic polycarbonate resin; and
b) a cadmium salt of an…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Application of Harold G. Petering and Harry H. FallCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- In re WigginsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Ritter v. Rohm & Haas CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- In re SchaumannCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
- Lewis A. Siegel v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Revlon, Inc. v. Carson Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1988
- In re FracalossiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982