Legal Opinion
In re Kronig
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 22, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 76-556PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LANE, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 12-15, and 20-27 in appellants’ application entitled “Process for the Production of Allyl Acetate.”1 We affirm.
The Invention
The rejected claims relate to a process for preparing allyl acetate in which propylene, oxygen, and acetic acid are reacted together as follows:
The process is catalyzed by a three-component catalyst (palladium metal, an iron compound, and an alkali metal compound) under specified reaction conditions. Illustrative claim…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Application of Rudolf WiechertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Earl Phillip Moore. Application of Harold M. Pitt and Harry BenderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Sol D. Gershon, Melvin A. Goldberg and Oscar W. NeiditchCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- In re EyndeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- In re WafmouthCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- In Re John R. BeattieCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Rambus Inc. v. ReaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- The Gillette Company v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- In re AntonieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- In Re Sujeet KumarCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.