Legal Opinion
In re Lancer
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided September 14, 1972No. 8731PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lane, Judge.
This is an appeal from that portion of the decision of the Board of Appeals sustaining the examiner in rejecting process claims 11 and 14-171 of appellants’ application2 as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 for obviousness over a patent to Jezl et al. (Jezl) .3 Our review of the record and arguments in this case convinces us that the board erred, and we accordingly reverse.
The claimed invention is a process of copolymerizing an alpha-olefin and a sterically hindered alkenyl amine in the presence of a Ziegler-type catalyst. In the specification, appellants explain that prior to their…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Hans Theodor BoeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Application of Herman HoeksemaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Application of Jerome G. Kuderna, Jr. And Donald D. PhillipsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- Application of Alfred AufhauserCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Eli Lilly and Company v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., Federal Pharmacal, Inc., Seymour N. Blackman, Steven Blackman, John Blackman v. Richard D. Wood, C. Harvey Bradley, Jr., Earl B. Herr, Jr., Cornelius W. Pettinga, Eugene L. Step and Arthur R. Whale, Additional on the CounterclaimCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- In Re Inland Steel CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- In re HughesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- In re MillsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.