Legal Opinion
In re Herz
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 22, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 76-574PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 2-7 and 9 in application serial No. 180, 925, filed September 15, 1971, for “Oxidation Inhibited Phosphate Based Hydraulic Fluids.” We affirm.
The Invention
The invention consists of functional fluids essentially of a phosphate base stock and an *550antioxidant of (1) a hydrogen phosphate ester, or amine salt thereof, and (2) an alkylene-linked hindered bisphenol. Appellants’ specification states that their fluids can additionally contain any of the well-known…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Norton Company, Appellant-Cross v. Carborundum Company, Appellee-CrossCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1976
- In Re GrayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Application of Bhogaraju v. Janakirama-RaoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- In re SaetherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
3Cited by5 opinions
- Atlas Powder Company v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company and Alamo Explosives Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Zoltek Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
- Dow Chemical Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1985
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Catalyst Research Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1982
- General Electric Co. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1988