Customs and Patent Appeals· 6/7/1979
In re Meyer
Citations
- 599 F.2d 1026
- 202 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 175
- 1979 CCPA LEXIS 240
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that rejection under § 102 was new ground following previous rejection under § 103, despite maxim that “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness”
- holding that rejection under § 102 was new ground following previous rejection under § 103, despite maxim that “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Newman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- In re PearsonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1974-04-25· cited 36×
- Application of Arthur v. HughesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1965-05-20· cited 26×
- Application of Max J. KalmCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1967-06-15· cited 16×
- In re MarshallCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1978-06-30· cited 15×
- In re EcherdCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1973-01-26· cited 7×
- In re PritchardCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1972-08-17· cited 5×
- Application of Ulf C. H. JacobsonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1969-03-06· cited 4×
- In re SkonerCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-06-12· cited 4×
- In re GroseCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1979-01-18· cited 4×
- In re DaileyCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1973-06-28· cited 3×
- Application of Otto Von SchickhCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1966-07-07· 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.