Legal Opinion

In re de Seversky

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 8, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 8816PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1 and 10 of appellant’s application serial No. 723,810, filed April 24, 1968, entitled “Multi-Con-centric Wet Electrostatic Precipitator,” for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.

Generally, the wet precipitator includes two concentric cylinders which define an annular space between them. Contaminated air or gas to be cleaned is directed through this annular space. Water is caused to flow on the inside surface of the outer cylinder as…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Application of Frantz Lund and Wagn Ole GodtfredsenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  2. Alexander P. Deseversky v. Edward J. Brenner, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State UniversityCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
  2. Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
  3. In re HoganCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
  4. In re HerschlerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
  5. Judin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API