Legal Opinion
In Re Long
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided April 27, 1936No. Patent Appeal 3614PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
The appellant has here appealed from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office which affirmed the Primary Examiner’s rejection of 17 claims, numbered 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 65, 66, and 67. One claim was allowed by the Examiner, and upon appeal others were allowed by the Board.
The invention relates to a piston, and the rejected claims all define a broad invention involving a so-called “contracting” piston, which is so constructed that, when the piston head expands by reason of heating, the skirt portion of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Chapman v. WintroathSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Miller v. HaymanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- In Re RhodesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
- Severson v. OlsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Daniels v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
- Application of Harry Louis Yale, Francis Alexander Sowinski and Jack BernsteinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- In re ShokalCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- In Re Charles H. Kroekel and Frederick A. PfaffCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Application of David BandelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.