Legal Opinion
Application of Karl Folkers and Clifford H. Shunk
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 6, 1965No. Patent Appeal 7304PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORLEY, Chief Judge.
Folkers and Shunk appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 of their patent application 1 for “2,3-Dimethoxy-5-Methyl-Benzoqui-nones.”
The subject matter is reflected in claim 1:
“1. A compound selected from the group consisting of
in which n is an integer from 1 to 6.”
The Patent Office has found appellants’ compounds to be new and unobvious. The sole issue here is whether the following paragraph of appellants’ specification is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 2 and 35 U.S.C. §112: 3
“The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. ShabicaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- In re ChilowskyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- In re NovakCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Robert R. CitronCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Brenner v. MansonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1968
- Application of John R. StemniskiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Standard Oil Co. v. Montedison, S.p.A.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.