Legal Opinion
Application of John R. Stemniski
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided October 7, 1971No. Patent Appeal 8434PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 10-12 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of certain prior art. We reverse.
The Invention
The invention relates to monomeric divalent, or polymeric disubstituted, ór-gano tin compounds of the formula appearing and defined in representative claim 10:
10. A disubstituted tin compound of the formula [Ri-Sn-R2]a wherein each of Ri and R2 is a substituent selected from the class consisting of aryl-oxyaryl radicals containing from 2 to 3 benzene rings, wherein each…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Aubrey A. LarsenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Application of HenzeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Application of Franz Bergel and John Albert StockCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals RoesslerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Eli Lilly and Company, Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc., Caribe Chemical Company, Inc., Ellencee Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., (Three Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
- In Re Diane M. DillonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Local Division 519, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Lacrosse Municipal Transit Utility and City of Lacrosse, WisconsinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.