PURDUE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT C. WATSON, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, APPELLEE
PURDUE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, APPELLANT,
ROBERT C. WATSON, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, APPELLEE
265 F.2d 107
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1959)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
In this suit under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to obtain a patent, the District Court upheld the Patent Office in rejecting appellant’s chemical claims on the ground that they failed to define the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. We find no error. Koebel v. Coe, 70 App.D.C. 261, 105 F. 2d 784; Watson v. Bersworth, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 251 F. 2d 898. Appellant asks us to notice certain claims which the Patent Office allowed to others, on February 25, 1958, Re. 24,435. However, those claims are more definite than the claims to which the present appeal relates.
Affirmed.
Concurrence
DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I deem myself bound to concur because of Watson v. Bersworth, supra, but see the dissent therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Texaco-Cities Serv. Pipe Line Co. & Clell Hedgpeth & Frank Stewart v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 283 F.2d 144 (8th Cir. 1960)
-
Lipscomb v. Lipscomb, 265 F.2d 822 (D.C. Cir. 1959)
-
Whitehouse v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 963 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- Koebel v. COE, 105 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1939)
- Tucker v. Wilber M. Brucker, 251 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1958)