Legal Opinion
Application of Stanley
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 24, 1954No. Patent Appeal 6010PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming the Primary Examiner in his rejection of claims 7, 8, 11-14, 38-41, and 46 of appellants’ application, Serial No. 504,664, for new and useful improvements in “Methods and Apparatus for the Fluid Treatment of Filamentary Materials.” All of the rejected claims are method claims. Apparatus claims 47-56 have been allowed.
Claims 7 and 14 were considered representative by the board and are so considered by us. They are as follows:
“7. The method of treating filamentary material…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Saranac Automatic MacHine Corp. v. Wirebounds Patents Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- In Re Robert Goodman, Vic C. Knauf, Catherine M. Houch and Luca ComaiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- General Foods Corporation v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle MbhCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw, Incorporated v. Rexnord, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- In re SarettUnited States Customs Court · 1964
- Leesona Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.