Application of Arthur F. Wagner and Karl A. Folkers
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
We are here concerned with the obviousness, 35 U.S.C. § 103, of a joint invention 1 of appellants relating to new chemical compounds and to compositions containing such compounds for inhibiting the growth of poliomyelitis viruses. The Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s final rejection of appealed claims 1 to 10.
The specification points out that: Science is beginning to secure control of poliomyelitis by means of immunization vaccines. There is, however, another approach to the control of this disease and especially the spread of its viruses. This is to find compounds…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Brenner v. MansonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of HenzeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Application of Arthur D. Lohr and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Application of Klaus Heinz Risse, Ulrich Horlein and Wolfgang Wirth. Application of Ulrich Horlein, Wolfgang Wirth and Klaus Heinz RisseCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals RoesslerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- In re GyurikCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- In re CesconCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- United States v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.