Legal Opinion

Blodgett v. Richter

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 27, 1935No. 3541PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGarrett, Judge

On December 4, 1925, Richter filed an application for patent in the United States Patent Office entitled, “For Cyclic Process of Treating Alkaline Pulps,” which was duly prosecuted until a number of claims reached the stage of allowance. It is said in the brief for appellants that this stage was reached April 11, 1930. Richter, however, it is further said in the brief, did not pay the final fee and take the patent, but, on September 26, 1930, filed a “renewal application” in which additional claims were inserted with the statement that they were intended to dominate claims of another patent…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Marion Den Beste v. Harry MartinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  2. Kyrides v. AndersenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1941
  3. Walsh v. DavidsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
  4. Josef Fried, David Perlman, Richard W. Thoma, and Elwood O. Titus v. Herbert C. Murray, and Durey H. PetersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API