Application of Julius Diamond and Milton Kellman
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of all the claims in appellants’ application 1 as obvious in view of certain prior art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 requires us to determine whether or not the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole was obvious. The parties have come to issue on the question of whether evidence relating to a therapeutic composition shows that the composition exhibits such unexpected results, in terms of an…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Application of Alan B. HuellmantelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of George W. Luvisi and Thomas C. NohejlCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Gustav Widmer, Hans Batzer and Edwin NiklesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Harold W. AdamsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Deutsche Goed-Und Sieber-Scheideanstalt v. Commissioner of PatentsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1966
3Cited by7 opinions
- Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals RoesslerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1972
- In re MagerleinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- Application of Norman A. MeinhardtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Application of Alan J. LeminCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.