Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe
135 F.2d 836, 58 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 380, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430
Opinion
In our opinion, the District Court correctly found that appellant was not entitled to a patent upon the claims in issue in this case, in view of the prior art. The Patent Office recognized the patentability of the process claims, the operative character of which has made the disputed compounds commercially available. But that the compounds themselves, and their usefulness for the purposes claimed by appellant, had been disclosed by the references upon which the Patent Office and the Court relied, there is no doubt.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe, 135 F.2d 836, 58 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 380, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430 (D.C. Cir. 1943).
135 F.2d 836 (Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Marzall
197 F.2d 206 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)