Legal Opinion
In re Smith
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided August 2, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 8935PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LANE, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the § 112 rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 13 and 51 of appellants’ application Serial No. 527,399 filed February 10, 1966, as a continuation-in-part of application Serial No. 290,218 filed June 24, 1963. We reverse.
The Invention
The claims are drawn to polymers which are cationically active at the ends. These polymers have the nonterminating characteristic of so-called “living” polymers. Appellants explain the concept in their brief as follows:
Polycationically active polymers, i. e., polymers, in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BanderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- In re SmytheCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Alfred Marzocchi and Richard C. HortonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- In re SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- In re WertheimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- In re HoganCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.