Legal Opinion
Application of Max J. Kalm
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 15, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7698PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORLEY, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 1 as anticipated by certain prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
The invention relates to particular morpholine derivatives of the formula
wherein R for purposes here is lower alkyl, being so defined in claim 1 and 2. Claim 3 is directed to the specific compound 2-cyclohexyl-3, 4-dimethylmorpho-line. According to the specification, the compounds are useful as “selective central nervous system [CNS] depressants —being potent barbiturate potentiators.” (Emphasis supplied.)
A…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Application of Harold G. Petering and Harry H. FallCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumüller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BänderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Thomas L. Jacobs and Ronald S. BauerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents, and Luther H. Hodges, Secretary of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
- Application of Nicholas M. MolnarCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
3Cited by16 opinions
- Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- In re ArkleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- In re PearsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- In re FracalossiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.