Legal Opinion

Application of James H. Shapleigh

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided October 10, 1957No. Patent Appeal 6262PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 18-20 as unpatentable over the prior art in appellant’s application for “Furnace and Process for Treatment of Fluid Reactants.” Claims 4, 7-9, 12 and 15-17 were withdrawn from further consideration under Patent Office Practice Rules, Rule 142(b), 35 U.S.C.A.Appendix, as not readable on the elected species and are thus not here on appeal.

At oral argument, counsel for appellant agreed that claims 10 and 18 were, as well, not readable…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re KeplerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  2. In Re GauerkeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
  3. In Re LewisCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
  4. In re LoblCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Continental Can Company, Inc. v. Old Dominion Box Company, Inc. And Dacam CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
  2. I. U. Technology Corp. v. Research-Cottrell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  3. I. U. Technology Corporation v. Research-Cottrell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API