Legal Opinion
In re Bulloch
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided September 6, 1979No. Appeal No. 78-626PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(g)/103 of claims 6 and 7 of application serial No. 335,343.1 We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The Invention
The invention relates to concentrates (aqueous solutions) for developing photographic color film. N,N-disubstituted p-phenylenediamines, particularly 4-amino-N-ethyl, N-(3-methane sulfonamidoethyl-m-toluidine (“AEMT”), have gained wide ac*1363ceptance as color developers.2 The application discloses the use of AEMT phosphate salts (e. g.,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kropa v. RobieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Application of Edwin H. Land and Howard G. RogersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- In re BassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Application of Charles A. MathewsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- In re EickmeyerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- The Perkin-Elmer Corporation, a Corporation of New York v. Computervision Corporation, a Corporation of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Stanton J. Rowe v. Michael Dror and Paul TresconyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Diversitech Corporation v. Century Steps, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- In Re Edgar L. StencelCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Porter v. Farmers Supply Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.