Legal Opinion
In re Crounse
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 28, 1966No. Patent Appeal No. 7630PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
The sole claim on appeal1 is to “the water-insoluble dyestuff having the structural formula.
The issue here is whether that monoazo dyestuff is obvious, 35 U.S.C. § 103, in view of a patent to Fischer, 2,006,211, issued June 25, 1935, that discloses both a generic class of monoazo dyestuffs inclusive of the claimed compound, and, more specifically, a compound which is a position isomer of the claimed compound :
Comparing the reference with the appealed compound, it will be noted that in *882the ring at the upper right, Fischer’s amide (-CONH2) group is attached at the meta, or 3-,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Application of Arthur D. Lohr and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Rene De Montmollin and Henri RiatCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Douglas H. MoretonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Application of Walter Luttrell GrafCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Minoo Dossabhoy MehtaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1972
- Application of Robert R. Mod, Evald L. Skau, Sara P. Fore, Frank C. Magne, Arthur F. Novak, Harold P. Dupuy, Jesse R. Ortego, and Mary J. FisherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- Application of Habet M. KhelghatianCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- In re ZeidlerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Application of Ralph E. Miegel and John J. VerbancCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.