# Application of David Neville Kirk and Vladimir Petrow

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · April 10, 1967 · 376 F.2d 936

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452713

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of David Neville KIRK and Vladimir Petrow
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** April 10, 1967
- **Citations:** 376 F.2d 936; 54 C.C.P.A. 1119
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Worley
- **Judges:** Rich, Smith, Worley, Almond, Kirkpatrick
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452713

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a “person skilled in the art” is commonly defined as “a typical inventor or designer active in the relevant field”
- noting Application of Adams, 50 C.C.P.A. 1185, 316 F.2d 476, 478-80 (1963) (Martin, J., concurring and dissenting)
- rejecting intermediaries for steroids with no known use
- noting how Manson mandated the overruling of Nelson

## Opinion text

WORLEY, Chief Judge
(specially concurring) .
It is most regrettable that for the first time in the history of this court, the usual orderly processes of the court have been ignored by a minority.
The instant appeal was re-argued December 5, 1966. The majority opinion was circulated December 22 in its present form. Yet, now, nearly three months later, the dissenting opinions are not available and no valid excuse is given.
It would seem that if the majority can direct its time and attention to expediting the work of the court it should not be toó much to expect the same diligence from the minority.
It should not be necessary to say that the duty of this court is to the litigants, applicants for patents, the Patent Office and the public — not to the possible whims and caprices of individual judges. It is impossible 1 to discharge that duty by condoning the instant derelictions, which hereafter will not be countenanced.
RICH, Judge.
Notice of Withdrawal
With the filing of the attached dissenting opinion in the above case, I hereby withdraw my “Notice of Forthcoming Dissenting Opinion,” dated. March 16,1967 (published in Patent, Trademark and Copyright Weekly Reports for April 3, 1967, 153 USPQ No. 1, at page 56 following the majority opinion herein).
. In fact, I have followed the development of this branch of patent law from long prior to the case of Monsanto v. Coe, 79 App.D.C. 155 , 145 F.2d 18 , (1944), significantly twice referred to by Mr. Justice Fortas in his Manson majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452713. Public record. Not legal advice.