Legal Opinion

In re Novak

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided July 25, 1962No. 6799PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, Judge

This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 23, 25, 32, 33 and 35 of appellants’ application for a patent on “Carboxymethyl Dextranates of Organic Bases and Method for Making Them.” Certain other claims were “withdrawn from further consideration under Rule 142(b), as not being readable on the elected species” and are not before us. No claims have been allowed.

The following claims are illustrative:

1. A carboxymethyl dextranate of an organic base resulting from neutralization of the base by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Isenstead v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1957
  2. In re LeBaronCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
  3. L. & C. Hardtmuth, Inc. v. Fabrique Suisse De Crayons Caran D'Ache S.A.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
  4. Application of Leo J. Novak and Joseph T. TyreeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
  5. Rudd v. KingslandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1951

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. In Re Miguel F. Brana, Jose M.C. Berlanga, Marina M. Moset, Erich Schlick and Gerhard KeilhauerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
  2. Application of George H. Hitchings, Gertrude B. Elion and Irving GoodmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  3. Application of Karl Folkers and Clifford H. ShunkCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  4. Application of Robert R. CitronCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
  5. Application of William C. AnthonyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969

22 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