Legal Opinion
Application of Frantz Lund and Wagn Ole Godtfredsen
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 11, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7713PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 15 and 16 in appellants’ application1 entitled “Substituted Dihydrobenzothiadia-zines.”
The subject matter of the application relates to certain 3-substituted-6-triflu-oromethyl-7-sulfamyl-3, 4-dihydro-l, 2, 4-benzothiadiazine-l, 1-dioxides of the formula
As set forth in the claims, the “R” group at position 3 of the benzothiadiazine nucleus is the only variable,2 defined in claim 15 as “Aralkyl,” in claim 16 as “mononuclear aralkyl,” in claim 2 as “Phenyl (lower…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Smith v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. BrennerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Application of Edwin H. Land and Howard G. RogersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- National Latex Products Company v. Sun Rubber Company, Akron Presform Mold Company v. Sun Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbHCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- In re WertheimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State UniversityCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbhCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott LaboratoriesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2008
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.