Application of Harry Sponnoble
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals,1 affirming the examiner’s rejection of the sole remaining claim in appellant’s application2 for “Mixing Yial Construction” as “unpatentable over” either Bujan3 or Lock-hart4 in view of Jensen5 and either parsons et al.6 or Umbdenstock7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Following the first decision by the Board of Appeals, appellant requested reconsideration, and the board rendered a second decision denying any error in the first and making no changes therein.
In the decision from which this appeal stems, the board made reference…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Application of Claus L. SporckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Herbert C. Murray and Durey H. PetersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Application of John O. AntonsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Application of George E. Linnert and Ronald H. EspyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Manuel F. LeonorCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1984
- Novelart Manufacturing Co. v. Carlin Container Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1973