Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Wertheim

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided August 26, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 75-536Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMiller, Judge

I dissent on claim 1. The error of the majority in affirming the rejection stems from a misstatement of the issue. It is not necessary when antedating a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) to establish a prior reduction to practice, constructive or actual, of all the subject matter falling within the claims. It is necessary only to establish a reduction to practice of sufficient subject matter to render the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 182 USPQ 614 (Oust. & Pat.App.1974). The *274majority errs, therefore, in seeking a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fontijn v. OkamotoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
  2. Hunt v. TreppschuhCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
  3. In re SpillerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  4. Application of Karl Ziegler, Heinz Breil, Erhard Holzkamp and Heinz MartinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  5. Application of Alois M. GemassmerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API