Legal Opinion

Application of Herman Hoeksema

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 29, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7778PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KIRKPATRICK, Judge.

This appeal is from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in appellant’s application serial No. 30,770, filed May 23, 1960, for “9-D-Psicofuranosylpurine and 6-Substituted Derivatives.” Claims 2 and 11-25 were allowed.

The subject matter is best illustrated by the appealed claim which reads: 1

1. An N-psieofuranoside having the formula:

wherein A is selected from the class consisting of hydrogen, the group -XR wherein R is selected from the class consisting of hydrogen, lower-alkyl, and lower-aralkyl, and X is selected from the class…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  2. Application of Eric D. BrownCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
  3. Application of Joseph R. Riden, Jr., and James P. FlavinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  4. Application of Robert M. ColeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Application of Herman HoeksemaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  2. In re CokerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  3. Application of Herman HoeksemaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  4. Application of Herman HoeksemaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API