Legal Opinion · Dissent

Application of Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbell and Paul Timmerbeil

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided July 26, 1963No. Patent Appeal 6898Published

1DissentSmith, Judge

This appeal and the appeal in In re Gruschwitz et al. (PA 6885), CCPA, 320 F.2d 401, decided concurrently herewith, have been dismissed by the majority because they find that appellants’ reasons of appeal do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 142. Unlike the situation in In re LePage’s Inc., 312 F.2d 455, 50 CCPA 852, where no reason of appeal was filed, appellants here have filed the two reasons of appeal quoted in the majority opinion. These reasons of appeal, as do the reasons of appeal in the Gruschwitz case, conform in content to reasons of appeal accepted by this court in a number…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Application of Lepage's Incorporated (A Subsidiary of the Papercraft Corporation, and Assignee of Johnson & Johnson)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  4. Application of Carl Arnold and Heinrich BrandtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API