Legal Opinion
In Re Daniel Bartfeld, Shmaryahu Blumberg, Marian Gorecki, Dan Hadary and Menachem Zeevi
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 20, 1991No. 90-1376PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Circuit Judge.
Bartfeld et al. (hereinafter “Bartfeld”) appeal from the March 30, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), reported at 16 USPQ2d 1714, affirming the PTO examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-45 of application Serial No. 06/734,450 (the ’450 application), 1 titled “Method for Recovering Purified Growth Hormones From Genetically Engineered Microorganisms,” as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As detailed below, two rejections are appealed, one being “provisional” in nature. We decline to address the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- In Re Paolo LongiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. BrennerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Application of David G. BraithwaiteCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Quad Environmental Technologies Corporation v. Union Sanitary District, and A.P.T., Inc., a California Corp. D/B/A Calvert Environmental, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbHDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Technology, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 2006
- Applera Corp. v. MJ Research Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2005