Legal Opinion
Application of Oskar Sus and Werner Schaefer
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 25, 1962No. Patent Appeal 6778PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The comparatively simple legal issue which emerges from the rather complex technical aspects of the application involved in this appeal is whether the rejected claims are broader than the written description of the invention and thus do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 1 The examiner and the board have held that they do not. Ap- ■ pellants contend on this appeal that they do. For reasons to be more fully set forth in this opinion, we agree with the board.
The claims on appeal are claims 24, 26, 30, 36, 38, 42, 48, 50, 54, 62 and 66 of appellants’ application Serial…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Merrill v. YeomansSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Application of Chester John Cavallito and Allan Poe GrayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- Application of MooreCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- In Re HortonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- In re SarettUnited States Customs Court · 1964
- Application of Frantz Lund and Wagn Ole GodtfredsenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2006
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.