Legal Opinion
In Re Merz
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 27, 1938No. Patent Appeal 3973PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
A number of claims relating to a process for purifying ultramarine having been allowed by the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office, appellant has appealed here from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming that of the examiner in rejecting claims 7 and 20 to 23, inclusive, which relate to the article, ultramarine, when produced by the said process. Appellant’s application teaches a method of purifying ultramarine which contains floatable dirt, including carbon and sulphur, by a flotation process in which the mass is made into a pulp and subjected to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
- In Re MardenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. v. KuehmstedU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1909
- In Re RidgwayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
3Cited by16 opinions
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Application of WilliamsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.