Legal Opinion
In re Barnett
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 4, 1946No. Patent Appeal No. 5088PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
The Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office, after allowing article claims 10, 13, 14, and 16 to 21, inclusive, for a patent relating to infusion packages, or more particularly tea balls, rejected two article claims, 12 and 15, and all the method claims, 1 to 9, inclusive, and 22. The rejection of the examiner of all the claims involved in this appeal was, upon grounds hereinafter discussed, affirmed by the Board of Appeals, and the applicant has appealed here seeking a revision and reversal of the board’s decision.
During the prosecution of the case certain…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dececo Co. v. George E. Gilchrist Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1903
- In Re ErnstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
- In Re McCurdyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
- In re ClarkCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- In re PrescottCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Application of Milton E. Chandler and Alexander M. WrightCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- In re ChandlerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- In re TouvayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- Application of Milton E. ChandlerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- Application of NewtonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.