Legal Opinion · Dissent

Application of Raymond Wynkoop and Shirley C. Bartlett, Jr

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 8, 1968No. Patent Appeal 7884Published

1DissentAlmond, Judge

While I agree with the conclusion of the majority that appellants’ claimed oils are novel, I do not believe the majority has basis for deciding that the board erred in its obviousness rejection, and I believe their conclusion is contrary to the recent decision of this court in In re Spatz, 55 CCPA ___, 387 F.2d 663, 156 USPQ 39.

In that case, as in this, patentability was urged based upon the presence of a very low maximum amount of an impurity. In that case, as in this, the prior art taught purification techniques suitable to remove at least a portion of the impurity. In that case, as in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Application of Sydney M. Spatz and Marvin KoralCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API