Application of Corneil

5 Citing cases

  1. Application of Corneil

    347 F.2d 570 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    Involved in Appeal No. 7366 is application Serial No. 859,023 of Corneil, Suttle and Milligan, filed December 11, 1959, having the same title. The subject matter of the present appeals bears close relation to the subject matter of Appeal Nos. 7284, 347 F.2d 557 and 7295, 347 F.2d 563, decided concurrently herewith. The applications in those appeals relate to detonation of a nuclear device in a subterranean salt cavern to produce radioactive isotopes and steam to be used for surface power. It is disclosed in the applications at bar that a "serious problem is encountered" in underground nuclear explosions of the above nature in salt formations.

  2. Application of Koller

    613 F.2d 819 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    These circumstances were listed in In re Hogan, supra, 559 F.2d at 605 n. 17, 194 USPQ at 537 n. 17: Where, for example, a later publication evidenced that, as of an application's filing date, undue experimentation would have been required, In re Corneil, 347 F.2d 563, 568, 52 CCPA 1718, 1724, 145 USPQ 702, 705 (1965), or that a parameter absent from the claims was or was not critical, In re Rainer, 305 F.2d 505, 507 n. 3, 49 CCPA 1243, 1246 n. 3, 134 USPQ 343, 345 n. 3 (1962), or that a statement in the specification was inaccurate, In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 n. 4, 58 CCPA 1069, 1073 n. 4, 169 USPQ 367, 370 n. 4 (1971), or that the invention was inoperative or lacked utility, In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391, 183 USPQ 288, 297 (CCPA 1974), or that a claim was indefinite, In re Glass, supra 492 F.2d at 1232 n. 6, 181 USPQ at 34 n. 6, or that characteristics of prior art products were known, In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 50 CCPA 773, 135 USPQ 442 (1962). Whatever may have been said enroute to decision in these cases, the fact situation in none of them established a precedent for permitting use of a later existing state of the art in determining enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. [Emphasis in original.

  3. Application of Hogan

    559 F.2d 595 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 56 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding that claim 15 was only entitled to a 1967 filing date where “the disclosure to support claim 15 appears in the 1953 and the 1967 applications, but not in the 1956 application”

    Thus, if appellants' 1953 application provided sufficient enablement, considering all available evidence (whenever that evidence became available) of the 1953 state of the art, i.e., of the condition of knowledge about all art-related facts existing in 1953, then the fact of that enablement was established for all time and a later change in the state of the art cannot change it. Where, for example, a later publication evidenced that, as of an application's filing date, undue experimentation would have been required, In re Corneil, 347 F.2d 563, 568, 52 CCPA 1718, 1724 (1965), or that a parameter absent from the claims was or was not critical, In re Rainer, 305 F.2d 505, 507 n. 3, 49 CCPA 1243, 1246 n. 3 (1962), or that a statement in the specification was inaccurate, In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 n. 4, 58 CCPA 1069, 1073 n. 4 (1971), or that the invention was inoperative or lacked utility, In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391 (CCPA 1974), or that a claim was indefinite, In re Glass, supra, 492 F.2d at 1232 n. 6, 181 USPQ at 34 n. 6, or that characteristics of prior art products were known, In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 50 CCPA 773 (1962). Whatever may have been said enroute to decision in these cases, the fact situation in none of them established a precedent for permitting use of a later existing state of the art in determining enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

  4. Application of Gazave

    379 F.2d 973 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    See also In re Irons, 340 F.2d 974, 52 CCPA 938. In re Corneil, 347 F.2d 557, 52 CCPA 1710; In re Corneil, 347 F.2d 563, 52 CCPA 1718; In re Corneil, 347 F.2d 570, 571, 52 CCPA 1736; In re Wooddy, 331 F.2d 636, 51 CCPA 1317. To the contrary, appellant's assertions of usefulness in his specification appear to us to be believable on their face and straightforward, at least in the absence of reason or authority in variance.

  5. Application of Corneil

    347 F.2d 557 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    However, the fact that the method has not been performed compels recognition that other problems not yet uncovered may exist in addition to those discussed. Although our agreement with the rejection of all the claims on section 112 makes it unnecessary to discuss the other grounds of rejection in detail, we are also of the opinion the claims are unpatentable in view of the prior art cited against them for reasons similar to those given in our opinion in Appeal No. 7295, 347 F.2d 563, decided concurrently herewith. The decision of the board is affirmed.