Abandonment 20, 59 Adrenalin case 102, 103 Adversary process 72

Altoona Publixs Theaters Inc. v. Tri-. Ergon. 22. Aluminum Co. of America v. Sperry. Products, Inc. 7. American Cyanamid Co. case ...... 104. Ames v. ...
0 downloads 0 Views 1010KB Size
INDEX A Abandonment A d r e n a l i n case Adversary

20, 59 102, 103 72

process

Downloaded by 188.114.147.33 on August 18, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1964 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1964-0046.ix001

A e r o s o l Research C o . v. S c o v i l l M f g . Co.

10

Affidavits 54 Agawam C o . v. Jordan 18 A j a x M e t a l C o . v . B r a d y Brass C o . . . 85 Alloys 64,109 Alternative protection 110 A l t o o n a Publixs Theaters Inc. v. T r i Ergon 22 A l u m i n u m C o . of America v . Sperry Products, Inc. 7 A m e r i c a n C y a n a m i d C o . case . . . . . . 104 Ames v. Lindstrom 50 A n a l o g s , patentability o f 73 ...

Anticipation . . . . Appeals A r c h e r v . Papa

65 .....57,69 45

Art 59 A r t i c l e patents 109 Artificial grouping 71 A s p i r i n cases 84,104 Assignment 35,55 A t l a n t i c & Pacific T e a C o . case 66 See also G r e a t A t l a n t i c & Pacific Tea Co.

Β Bac v. L o o m i s , 42 Bancroft v . W a t s o n 93 Becton-Dickinson & C o . v. R . T . Scherer C o r p . 17 Benecke, E x parte 49 Bergel, I n re 12 B e r k m a n and B e r k m a n case 103 22 9

Best t h o u g h t Birmingham v . Randall B l u e , J o h n C o . v. D e m p s t e r Mfg. Co. Boats, self-propelled

Mill

24 2

B o w e r s v. W o o d m a n

32

B r a d l e y , Judge B r a d y , E x parte Brainstorming

6 75 17 8 9

B r e m m e r , I n re Bros I n c . v. B r o w n i n g M f g . C o . . . . . B r o w n , E x parte B r o w n v . Edeler B u r g g r a f - B o c k e l m a n n , J o h n , and Strandskov, F . B . , patent

.

55 21 95

C C a r r i e r plus chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories o f patents C e n t r a l Farmers F e r t i l i z e r C o

87 82 39

Chamberlain, G . D . , E x parte Change o f purpose

88 85

Chemical compounds 101 C h e m i c a l u t i l i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Chemicals, foreign patent c o v e r a g e . . 107 Claims Clark Thread C o . v. Willimantic Linen C o C i b a case Coca-Cola Cochrane v . Deener Coes, L o r i n g , J r . , I n re "Composed of" Compositions o f matter

62 33 108

28 88 11 64 64, 82, 101

"Comprising" Conception record "Conception"

64 54 63

C o n n e r v . Joris "Consisting o f " Consolazio, W . V . , patent Constitutional grant Continuation-in-part C o n t r i b u t o r y infringement

47 64 94 2 67 90

C o o l i d g e patent

64

C o r r e c t i o n o f errors Corroboration Crystalline f o r m patents

113 In Patents for Chemical Inventions; Lawson, E., et al.; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1964.

71 23,42 83

114

PATENTS FOR CHEMICAL INVENTIONS

Downloaded by 188.114.147.33 on August 18, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1964 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1964-0046.ix001

D

F r i d o l p h v . Bechik Fromberg, I n c . v . T h o r n h i l l . . .

Davidson, In re 55 D a v i s v. C a r r i e r 17 DDT 108 Dennis v. P i t n e r 103 D i d u s c h , W . P . , patent . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 D i s c l a i m e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Disclosure 63 D i l i g e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Dinwiddie v . St. Louis & O T a l l o n Coal C o 35 D o c u m e n t s , f o r m a l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 D o d s o n , In r e 9 Dosselman a n d N e y m a n n . . . . . . . . . . 60 D r . Salisbury Laboratories v . I . D . Russell C o 87 Druey and Schmidt, In re . 10 Drugs ..................61,111 d u P o n t de N e m o u r s & C o . v . U n i t e d States 28 D u d d y v. Solomon 45 D u n m o r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 D w i g h t & L l o y d s Sintering C o . v . Greennalt 20

Ε Electric welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ellis, Carlton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E l l i s , In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Embodiment" "Essential" Ether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exclusive right E x t e n d e d technical arms . . . . . . . . . . Extraction . . . . . ...............

66 60 60 63 63 2 1 16 109

F Farbenfabriken

o f Elberfeld C o . v .

Kuehmsted 84 Ferguson, Α . , J r . , patent . . . . . . . . . . 87 Field 54 F i l i n g fee 49 Finish-remover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 F i n k patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F i n l e y , I n re 11 Fisher, In r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Fitch, John . . . . . . . ............ 2 Fluorescents 109 Foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · Ill F o r e i g n patent coverage . . . . . . . . . . . 107

45 87

G Gaiser v . L i n d e r 45 G e n e r a l C h e m i c a l C o . v. Standard Wholesale P h o s p h a t e & A c i d Works 18 General Electric . . . . . . . . . . 101 G e n e r i c c l a i m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Genus 62 G i l l v . U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 G o o d y e a r C o . v . Ray-O-Vac C o . . . 9 G r a v e r T a n k M f g . C o . v. L i n d e A i r Products 67 G r a y patent 64 G r a y , I n re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 G r e a t A t l a n t i c a n d Pacific T e a C o . v. Supermarket E q u i p m e n t C o r p . 7 See also A t l a n t i c & Pacific T e a C o . G r e i f , M a r t i n , patent 94 G r i m m e , I n re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 G r u s k i n , Benjamin, patent . . . . . . . . . 87 Gustavson, E x parte 55 G u t h v. M i n n e s o t a M i n i n g & M a n u ­ facturing Co. . . . . 37 G y s i n , H a n s , a n d Knusli, E n r i c o , patent

91

H H a r d i n g v. Steingiser & Salyer . . . . 44 Harrison and Packman, E x p a r t e . . . . 9 Hartop a n d Brandes, I n re . . . . . . . . 9,45 H ass, I n re 11 H e i n z e , E x parte 50 H e n k e l , E x parte 11 H e n z e , I n re 11 H e r r , I n r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Hessel, E x parte 88 H e y w o o d - W a k e f i e l d C o . v. S m a l l . . 31 H o f f m a n , F e l i x , patent . . . . . . . . 84 H o f m a n n , A l b e r t , a n d Troxler, F r a n z , patent 92 H o m o l o g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 73,77 H o p k i n s , Samuel 2 H o s k i n s v . G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c . . . . . . . 86 H o t c h k i s s v. G r e e n w o o d 9 H o u g h t o n v . U n i t e d States 34 H u y l & Patterson v. M c D o w e l l C o . ,

In Patents for Chemical Inventions; Lawson, E., et al.; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1964.

115

Downloaded by 188.114.147.33 on August 18, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1964 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1964-0046.ix001

INDEX

"Illustrative" 63 Improvement 59 Incandescent L a m p case . . . . . . . . . . 60 Inducement t o infringe . . . . . . . . 90 Infringement 60,66 Interference . . . . . . . . .41, 57 c h r o n o l o g i c a l procedure 43 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . ... 57,65 Invalidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 See also V a l i d i t y Invention 61 elements . . 42 i n special fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I l l standard o f . . . . . . . . . ., . . 13 Inventor entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Inventor, w r o n g 19 Inventorship 15 Intervening r i g h t 71 Isenstead v . W a t s o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 , 6 2 Isomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,77

Lane & B o d l e y C o . v . L o c k e Larsen, I n re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Larsen P r o d u c t s C o r p . v . Perfect Paint P r o d u c t s , I n c . . . . . . . . . . . . L e g a l requirements L e v i n e v . U n i t e d States Levy I J n d e A i r P r o d u c t s v.. G r a v e r T a n k Mfg. Co. Livingston, Robert L o c a t i o n o f use . ......... L o h r and S p u r l i n , I n re ,

30 12 24 1,4 54 9 67 2 89 12

L o w e l l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 L u n g b e r g , I n re 11 L y o n v . G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . . . . . . . 89

M

M ah η v . H a r w o o d . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 M a r k u s h claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 M a r s h N i c h r o m e patent . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Maytag C o . v . M u r r a y Corp. of j A m e r i c a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 M c C l u r g v . K i n g s l a n d . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Jaffee a n d O g d e n v . Kassley . . . . . . . 9 M e a n i n g o f c h e m i c a l patents . . . . . . 57 Jepson, E x parte .. 93 Medicines ......................61,111 J o i n t invention . . . . . . . . .. . 20 foreign patent coverage . . . . . . . . . 107 J o i n t inventors, order o f names o f . . 24 M e r g e n t h a l e r v . Scudder . . . . . . . . . . 16 Jones, K e n n e d y , and R o t e r m u n d Metallurgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Method 59 Jungersen v . O s t b y & B a r t o n C o . . . . 1.3 M i c r o b i o l o g i c a l products . . . . . . . . 9 9 , 1 0 4 M i l l e r , E x parte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 , 50 Κ M i l l s , I n re V i c t o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,96 M i n e r a l Separation v . H y d e . . . . . . . . 18 K a l o Inoculant C o . v . F u n k B r o s . M i s j o i n d e r , hazards o f . . . . , — . . . 24 Seed C o 19 M i x e d Crystals 109 K e n d a l l C o , v . T e t l e y T e a C o . . . . . 23 M i x t u r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,110 K i n g case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Moler & Adams v. Purdy 43 K l e i n m a n v. Betty D a i n C r e a t i o n s . . 54 M o n s a n t o C h e m i c a l C o . v . M i l l e r . . . 38 K o c h v. L i e b e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Morehouse, N . F . , & M a y f i e l d , O . J . , K r e m e n t z v . S. Cottle C o 9 patent 87 K r i m m e l , In re 9,62 M o r s e case 100 K u e h m s t e d v . Farbenfabriken of E l Morton, D r . . . . . . . . . . ......... 2 berfeld C o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 2 M or w a y , B e e r b o w e r & Z i m m e r v . K u h n e Identifying Systems I n c . v . Bondi 42 U n i t e d States » 19 - " M u l t i p l i c i t y " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 K y r i d e s v . Bruson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

L L a b o r a t o r y testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L a m b o o y , In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M 44 12

N a t u r a l products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 N e l s o n a n d Shabika case . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 6 1

In Patents for Chemical Inventions; Lawson, E., et al.; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1964.

PATENTS FOR CHEMICAL INVENTIONS

Downloaded by 188.114.147.33 on August 18, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1964 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1964-0046.ix001

116

N e w matter 67 N e w use 11 Nichols v. Atkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Nielsen v. Cahill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Nitrogen-fixing bugs 19 Nonjoinder, hazards o f . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Nonpatentable discovery . . . . . . . . . . 2 Novak and Hogue, In re . . . . . . . . . . 9 Novelty 4,78

Process claims 88 patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,108 Proof of utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 , 1 1 2 Prusak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Purity alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Pyrene Mfg. C o . v. Boy ce . . . . . . . . 33 Pyrophoric alloy . ......... 62

Ο

Radio Position Finding Corp. v . Bendix Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Randolph, Edmund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Records 53 Reduction to practice . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 , 4 4 Rehearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Reifsnyder, E x parte . . . . . . . . . . 55 Reiner v. The I. Leon Co., Inc. . . . . 13 Reissue . . . . . . 70 Restrictive Trade Practices Commis­ sion Ill Rhodes, E x parte 49 Riden and Flavin, In re . . . . . . . . . . 11,95 Rodin v. Spalding 44 Rothermel and Waddell, Jr., In r e . . 10 Rule 71 61 Rule 75 ..........62,68 Rules 131 and 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Rules of general application . . . . . . 96 Rules of practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 R y stan Co. v . Warren-Teed Products Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Oath 49,50 Objects of the invention 66 Obviousness 74 See also Unobviousness Official rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 O'Reilly v. Morse ..18,100 Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 32

Ρ Palmquist and Erwin, In re 9 Papers, formal 49 Papesch, In re Viktor . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 7 5 , 8 2 Parke-Davis v. Mulford 102 Patent Acts 2 Patent Code of 1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 , 106 Patent Law, First U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Patentability 7 Patenting abroad 112 Patents, first American . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 , 5 7 Pearl ash 2,58 Petering and Fall, In re 12 Petition 49,52 Pfeiffer, F . L . , patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Pharmaceutical applications 62 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Ladd 94 Pieroh and Weeres, In re . . . . . . . . 11,88 Pigments . . . . 109 Plant isolates .99,103 "Plurality" 63 Pointer v. Six W h e e l Corp. . . 19 Potash and pearl ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Power of attorney 51 "Preferably" .60,63 Preliminary statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 amendment 43 Principle of nature 99 Prior art references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Priority of invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Products of nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

R

S Salathiel, E x parte . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Salt 2 Santmyer, E x parte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Schaefer, Inc., v. Mohawk Cabinet Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Scherer, E x parte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Schluchter, E x parte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Secrecy provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Section 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Section 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 6 1 Section 100(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Section 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 , 5 9 Section 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Semiconductors 109 Shell Development v. Watson 86 Shop right 29 Short form 53

In Patents for Chemical Inventions; Lawson, E., et al.; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1964.

INDEX

117

Silicates .. Six-wheel truck , . ............. Smith Brothers cough drops Snell, E x parte . . . . . ........... Solomons v. United States Solutions Special purity Species . . . . . . . ................ "Specific embodiment" Standard Parts Co. v . Peck Statutory changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steelmand, E x parte, S. L . , and Kell,

Downloaded by 188.114.147.33 on August 18, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1964 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1964-0046.ix001

T. L.

Steinberg, M . D . , patent . . . . . . . . . . Steroid Structure in compositions "Subject matter as a whole" . . . . . . "Subject matter sought to be pat­ ented" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Substantially" . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Symington C o . v. National Castings Co. · Szwarc, In re ,

68 19 28 103 30 109 84 62 59 33 81 85 92 61 94 74 74 63 33 8

United Chromium v. General Motors Corp. . . . . . . . 16 United Shirt & Collar Co. v. Beattie 22 United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp 29 United States v. Solomons . . . . . . . . 34 Unobviousness 5,9, 59,106

See also Obviousness Use to be claimed as process . . 88 Utility 5,23,61,105 contemplated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 proof of , .....44,112 requirements of 8 ultimate use doctrine 45

V Validity ............7,66 See also Invalidity Van Otteren v. Hafner 24 Visible fingerprints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 V o n Bramer & Ruggles, In re 95 Vrooman v. Penhallow . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Τ Tanczyn, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Tansel, In re 17 Tea bag container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Teppema, E x parte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Tetracycline case 104 Thropp & Son v. D e L a s k i and Thropp Circular Woven Tire Co. ....21,24 Thuau, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96,104 Tracer lab Inc. v. Industrial Nucle­ onics Corp 16 Trade secrets .28, 36, 38 Treatment of animals 91 Treatment of human body 91 Tolbutamide 110 Tolkmith 61 Twentier's Research Inc. v. Hollister Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Tungsten, metallurgy of 64 Tungsten case 101

U U d y patent Union Carbide case

16 66

W W a r p v. Warp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, George . . Welsbach patent . . . . . . .... Westinghouse Electric Co. v. Mont­ gomery W e ver v . G o o d & Putzrath . . . . . . . . W i c k wire Spencer Steel C o Widmann, R . R., patent . . . . . . . . . . . Wilke and Pfohl, In re Willard, J . R., and Maiden, E . G . . . Winslow, Samuel Wiswall, R. H . , Jr., patent W r i t of certiorari W r o n g inventor named

60 57 62 68 42 32 87 8 92 2 83 69 19

Y

Yale and Bernstein, E x parte . . . . . .

84

Ζ Zbornik and Peterson, E x parte . . . .

In Patents for Chemical Inventions; Lawson, E., et al.; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1964.

91