Legal Opinion

Application of Arthur R. Tomlinson, Harry H. Hall and William F. Geigle

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided August 4, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7500PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals1 affirming the examiner’s rejection of product claims 1 through 17 and process claims 18 through 20 in application serial No. 34,384, filed June 7, 1960, for “Stabilized Polypropylene.” No claim has been allowed.

The issue is patentability over the prior art and, in order to develop a clearer picture of what the invention is, its background, and its relation to the art, we shall first present a chronological discussion of that art. The references relied on by the examiner and board are:

Naunton et al.

*929Additional…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Application of McKennaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  2. Application of Douglas H. MoretonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
  3. Application of Wilhelm Neugebauer, Martha Tomanek and Hans BehmenburgCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
  2. In Re Patrick H. O'farrell, Barry A. Polisky and David H. GelfandCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  3. In Re Gary E. GEIGERCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
  4. In re MayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
  5. In re AntonieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977

25 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