Legal Opinion
In Re James R. Amos, Chester K. Greathouse and David S. Riddle
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided December 31, 1991No. 91-1298PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
James R. Amos, Chester K. Greathouse, and David S. Riddle (collectively, “pat-entees”) submitted an application for a broadened reissue of U.S. Patent No. 4,610,582 (“582 patent”). New claims 10 through 12 were finally denied after appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) because the “failure to claim the subject matter of claims 10 through 12 was not the result of the ‘error’ required by 35 USC 251” since the “objective intent of the patentees” had been to claim only the subject matter in the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- In Re Leslie N. Wilder, James C. Whitney and Gary G. Matison, and Lanier Business Products, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- In Re Elmar W. Weiler and Richard L. MansellCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Dethmers Manufacturing Co. v. Automatic Equipment Mfg. Co.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1998
- Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.