Application of Arthur P. Shepard
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
ALMOND, Judge.
This is an appeal from the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s refusal to allow claims 28 through 39 in appellant’s patent application. 1 No other claims remain in the application.
The application discloses a specified spraywelding material and its use in a spraywelding process. Claims 28 through 35 are drawn to a spraywelding powder mixture. Claims 36 through 39 are drawn to a spraywelding process.
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a process called spraywelding. The background of this process and the problem arising therefrom is stated in appellant’s brief as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In re GardinerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Bullard Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1945
- In re BourdonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- Application of HonnigCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- In Re RichterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re MalagariCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Application of James H. Saunders and Paul G. GemeinhardtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Marco PredaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- In re WaymouthCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Application of James R. CourtrightCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.