Legal Opinion
In re Driscoll
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided October 6, 1977No. Patent Appeal No. 77-560PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALMOND, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection of claim 13 of appellant’s application, serial No. 316,794, filed December 20, 1972, for “5-Substituted Thiadiazole Ureas and Their Use as Herbicides.”1 We reverse.
The Invention
The invention relates to 5-alkylsulfonyl-1, 3, 4-thiadiazole ureas which are useful in controlling undesired plant growth.
The appealed claim (paragraphing supplied) reads:
13. A Compound of the Formula
wherein R is alkylsulfonyl (Ci-C6);
Rj is selected from the group consisting…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BanderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Luke Thorington, Gerald Schiazzano and Joel ShurganCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- Engineering Development Laboratories v. Radio Corp. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- In re JohnsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
3Cited by30 opinions
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.