In Re Crowell
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
GARRETT, Associate Judge.
There is here before us for review a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Examiner rejecting sixteen out of twenty-six claims of appellant’s application for patent entitled, “For Well Cementing.” The claims on appeal are numbered, respectively, 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 16 to 26, inclusive. These are divisible into four groups, 1 and 5 constituting the first group; 7, 9, and 11 the second; 16, 17, and 18 the third; and 19 to 26, inclusive, the fourth. The first, second, and fourth groups comprise method claims.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- McCarty v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Cohn v. United States Corset Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- In Re MardenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- In re ModineCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- In re MrazCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Carborundum Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- In Re PattonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
- In Re SaundersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- In Re CresswellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.