Legal Opinion

In re Weijlard

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 4, 1946No. 5098PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Garrett, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:.This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the Primary Examiner in finally rejecting, as noninventive over prior art cited, all the claims (eight in number) of appellants’ application, serial No. 382,946, for patent on “Crystalline Nonhygroscopic Calcium Panto thenate and Process of Preparing the Same.”

Claims numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 are drawn to the product, and claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the process of making it.

Claim 1 is the broadest of the product claims,…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. In re ShokalCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  2. Application of Edward C. Shokal, Paul A. Devlin and Deloss E. WinklerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  3. In re McMurryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  4. Application of Arthur A. McMurryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  5. Application of Friedrich Gruschwitz and Albert FritzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API