Legal Opinion
Application of Douglas J. Bridgeford
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 9, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7492PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The appealed claims stand rejected by the examiner on two grounds which were affirmed by the board: (1) “double patenting,” and (2) obviousness of the appealed claims in view of the prior art reference of record. Our disposition of this appeal requires that we consider only the rejection based on “double patenting.”
A statement of the subject matter defined by the appealed claims is set forth in appellant’s brief:
The invention relates to a novel composite polymeric material consisting of wood fibers or cellulose fibers isolated from wood having a guest polymer of an olefinically…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Application of Max O. RobesonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- Underwood v. GerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Application of Saul KayeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- In re SiuCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- In re WertheimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Atlantic Thermoplastics Co., Inc., James B. Sullivan and Richard B. Fox v. Faytex Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Standard Oil Co. v. Montedison, S.p.A.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.