Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Ralston Purina Company v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 19, 1985No. Appeal 84-1237Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJack R. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge
I cannot agree with the section in the majority opinion concerning the “written description” requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph with respect to claims 10-13, 15-28, and 32.
It is necessary that Flier be entitled to its grandparent application’s filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 if it is to avoid the invalidating effect of the ADM anticipating reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). To be entitled to the benefit of the date of a previously filed copending application under section 120, such application must contain a written description of the invention claimed, and of the manner and…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Kropa v. RobieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BanderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- In Re Frank N. Piasecki and Donald N. MeyersCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- In re WertheimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.