Legal Opinion
In re Gardner
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 14, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 8923PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARKEY, Chief Judge.
The Commissioner has petitioned for rehearing and reconsideration with respect to our reversal of the § 112 rejection based on the first paragraph description requirement. Our view that original claim 2 in itself constituted sufficient “description in the original disclosure” of a subgenus within the broad class of quanidinoalkyl-1: 4-benzodiox-an derivatives disclosed in the application to satisfy the description requirement has been challenged.
The Commissioner’s basic contention is succinctly stated at page 6 of the petition as follows
While an original claim may be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re GardnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Application of Chester John Cavallito and Allan Poe GrayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Alfred Marzocchi and Nicholas S. JanetosCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
3Cited by14 opinions
- Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- In re WertheimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Lnp Engineering Plastics, Inc. And Kawasaki Chemical Holding Co., Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc. (Trading as Rtp Company), Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.