Customs and Patent Appeals· 6/16/1977
In re Johnson
Citations
- 558 F.2d 1008
- 194 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 187
- 1977 CCPA LEXIS 140
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reversing rejection for in- adequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but ex- cluded two species of lost interference count
- reversing rejection for in- adequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but ex- cluded two species of lost interference count
- “It is for the inventor to decide what bounds of protection he will seek.”
- “The facts of the prosecution are properly presented and relied on, under these circumstances, to indicate that appellants are merely excising the invention of another, to which they are not entitled, and are not ... claiming ‘new matter.’ ”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lane, Markey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In Re Gary E. GEIGERFederal Circuit· 1987-04-01· cited 52×
- Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2012-09-04· cited 45×
- In re DriscollCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1977-10-06· cited 33×
- In Re Robert C. Sneed and Joseph C. Young, and E-Z Lay Pipe Corp. And Stream Line, Inc., IntervenorsFederal Circuit· 1983-06-27· cited 29×
- Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. LillyE.D. Texas· 2017-08-25· cited 21×
- Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2015-11-13· cited 19×
- Barnett v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1984-10-30· cited 10×
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc.Federal Circuit· 2022-01-03· cited 7×
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc.Federal Circuit· 2022-06-21· cited 7×
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.D. Delaware· 1989-06-30· cited 5×
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- In re WertheimCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1976-08-26· cited 89×
- Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van VenrooyCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1970-03-12· cited 62×
- Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. JanoskiCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-04-01· cited 53×
- Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. SpurlinCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-05-27· cited 46×
- Application of Charles T. FuettererCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1963-06-28· cited 39×
- In re SmithCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1972-05-18· cited 36×
- In re PearsonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1974-04-25· cited 36×
- In re AngstadtCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1976-06-24· cited 34×
- In re SkollCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-10-23· cited 20×
- Application of James H. Saunders and Paul G. GemeinhardtCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-06-24· cited 17×
- Application of William C. Rainer, Edward M. Redding, Joseph J. Hitov, Arthur W. Sloan and William D. StewartCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1962-07-25· cited 10×
- Vogel v. JonesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1973-10-11· cited 9×
- In re RobertsCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1973-01-18· cited 7×
- In re MattisonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-01-23· cited 7×
- In re WatsonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-06-05· cited 7×
- In re GoffeCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1976-10-07· cited 7×
- In re WelsteadCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1972-08-03· cited 6×
- In re MeratCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-08-07· cited 4×
- In re GoffeCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-12-18· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.