Legal Opinion
Application of Viktor Papesch
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 20, 1963No. Patent Appeal 6882PublishedCited by 125 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1-3, the only claims presented in appellant’s application Ser. No. 836,870, filed August 31, 1959, for “2,4,6-TRIALKYLPYRAZOLO [4,3-d]-4,5,6,7-TETRAHYDROPYRIMI-DINE-5,7-DIONES.”
The specification, which is brief and occupies less than three pages of the printed record, states:
“The trialkyl compounds of this invention have been found to possess unexpectedly potent anti-inflammatory activity in contrast to the related trimethyl compound. The instant compounds are also diuretic…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Application of Harold G. Petering and Harry H. FallCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Aubrey A. LarsenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Application of HenzeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Schering Corporation v. GilbertCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Application of Franz Bergel and John Albert StockCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by125 opinions
- In Re Patrick H. O'farrell, Barry A. Polisky and David H. GelfandCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Application of Rudolf WiechertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. William N. Otte, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
120 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.