Court Opinion

ID: 9446707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:16:33.922618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:45.076325
License: Public Domain

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.