Application of Arthur v. Hughes
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
WORLEY, Chief Judge,
with whom MARTIN, Judge, joins (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
While I agree with the majority that the Link patent is not a full “anticipatory” reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102, I cannot agree that a rejection of the claims on the grounds set out by the board is not before us.1 Admittedly, if no rejection based on section 103 were made by the board, it cannot be considered by this court. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 49 CCPA 1288. Thus it becomes pertinent to look at the board’s opinion to see if such a rejection were made.
As the majority opinion notes, the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Application of Frederick C. FosterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- In re GreggCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- Application of John B. Dwyer, Joseph W. Jewell, William B. Johnson, Henry G. McGrath and Louis C. RubinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Joseph D. TurlayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Frank A. Rice and Elias W. WilsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965