Legal Opinion
In re HOWARTH
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 16, 1981No. Appeal No. 81-512PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NIES, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection of all claims of appellant’s application Serial No. 620,564, filed October 8, 1975, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failure to disclose how to make or obtain the starting material requisite to the preparation of the claimed compounds. We affirm. ■
Background
This application involves various derivatives of clavulanic acid.1 Preparation of the derivatives is disclosed but no method is given for making the starting material, clavulanic acid, per se, nor is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- In re ChilowskyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- In re LangeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- In Re StauberCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Application of Bo Thuresson Af EkenstamCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. And North American Lighting, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC and Jens Ole SorensenCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Peter J. Degeorge v. Donald R. BernierCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit SystemCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- In Re Bradley C. CarlsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.