Legal Opinion
In re Strahilevitz
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided January 15, 1982No. Appeal No. 81-563PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge.
The decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) sustaining the rejection of claims 36-48 1 as unsupported by an adequate disclosure required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
*1230BACKGROUND
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to methods and devices for removing a hapten, antigen, or antibody from the blood of a living mammal.
A hapten is a small molecule which does not by itself produce antibodies but which, when conjugated to a carrier protein or other macro-molecular carrier, induces in a recipient animal or human the production…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Application of Newsome W. GayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van VenrooyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- In re ArmbrusterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- In re EyndeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- In re SichertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., and Hubert J.P. SchoemakerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- In Re Francis J.A.M.C. De Blauwe and Frank K.A. SelleslagsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Charles R. Christianson and International Trade Services, Inc., Etc. v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- In Re Robert L. LundakCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.