Legal Opinion

In re Imperato

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 15, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 9114PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ALMOND, Senior Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of claims 1-5 of appellant’s application1 entitled “Lump Ore Products and Methods of Making Same.” We reverse.

According to the record, low grade ores, from which refined metals are obtained, must be upgraded by a “benefi-ciation” process before they can be employed in metallurgical furnaces. The beneficiation process involves grinding the ore to a finely divided state in order to facilitate the removal of impurities. However, the fineness of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Application of Franz Bergel and John Albert StockCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik Gmbh v. American Hoist and Derrick Company, Harris Press and Shear Division, Commercial Metals CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  2. Acs Hospital Systems, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Montefiore Hospital and Wells National Services Corporation, Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  3. In Re Howard SernakerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
  4. Carl Schenck, A.G. v. Nortron CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
  5. In Re Lucas S. Gordon and Karl M. SutherlandCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API