Legal Opinion

Application of Walker Manufacturing Company

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 5, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7568Published

1Dissent · MartinMartin, Judge

I fail to find in the majority opinion any articulated reason why the term “chambered pipe” is descriptive of appellant’s exhaust system not heretofore known, and thus I am not convinced that the opinion expressed therein that the term is “apt” and “clearly descriptive” is correct.

When 1 think of a chambered pipe, if I have any mind’s eye view at all, I would visualize a straight tube having spaced internal dividers. But then the term is self-contradictory, since a pipe is a hollow tube, yet to be “chambered” tends to defeat its functional purpose as a conduit.

Further, I agree with Judge…

Also in this document: Dissent · Smith.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Van Camp Sea Food Co. v. Alexander B. Stewart OrganizationsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  2. Browns Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Russell Hosiery Mills, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  3. Polaroid Corporation v. Anken Chemical & Film Corporation, Assignee of Cormac Photo-Copy CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  4. The Fleetwood Company, Assignee of Cosmetic Manufacturing Co. v. The Mitchum CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API