Legal Opinion
Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. Janoski
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided April 1, 1971No. Patent Appeal 8428PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Patent Office Board of Appeals was correct in affirming the rejection of claims 1-7 in appellants’ application 1 as failing to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Five other claims were allowed.
THE INVENTION
The subject matter of the appealed claims involves products which are obtained when hydrocarbon compounds of the following nature are fluorinated:
The two-dimensional drawing shown above is supposed to represent a highly complex, three-dimensional compound referred to as an alkyladamantane. According to appellants’…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Application of Newsome W. GayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Roland Ralph Dileone and Howard Robert LucasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Arthur H. AhlbrechtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Janis RobinsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- Application of Charles C. CohnCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Crown Operations International, Ltd. And Marshall H. Krone v. Solutia Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.