Purdue Research Foundation v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents
Opinions
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
265 F.2d 107 (Purdue Research Foundation v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.