Legal Opinion
In re Kuehl
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 22, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 8815PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 11, 12, and 13 in appellant’s application serial No. 651,108, filed July 5, 1967, entitled “Crystalline Aluminosilicate and Method of Preparing the Same.” 1 We reverse.
The Invention
Appellant describes his. contribution to the “Useful Arts.”2 as a single invention or discovery having three aspects:(1) Appellant has discovered and synthesized a novel zeolite identified by the symbol ZK-22 and described more fully by the following…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Application of Charles D. Prater and James WeiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- Application of Aubrey A. LarsenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Application of Wilhelm Neugebauer, Martha Tomanek and Hans BehmenburgCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- Application of CraigeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Ipxl Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- In re WertheimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- In re BergyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- In Re Laszlo Marosi, Joachim Stabenow, and Matthias SchwarzmannCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- In re RichmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.