Legal Opinion
In Re Marden
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 25, 1931No. Patent Appeal 2631PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.
The appellant has appealed from a decision of the Board of Appeals, rejecting his claims 18 to’ 32; inclusive, of his application for a patent upon processes of manufacture of, and products of, uranium. The rejected claims are product claims, the appellant having been allowed, in the Patent Office, certain process claims in his application, and which are said to fully cover the process hy which his product is obtained. The appellant states that claims! 18, 22; 26, 29, 30, and 32 are typical, and they are here given:
“18. As a now article, ductile uranium.
“22. Uranium in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
3Cited by14 opinions
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- In Re MardenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.