In re Mulholland
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge
All the claims of appellant’s application for a patent relating to an abrading or polishing machine were rejected by the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office for reasons hereinafter stated, and upon appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejection upon some of the grounds assigned by the examiner. Appellant has appealed here for a review and revision of the board’s decision.
The reference relied upon are:
Poole, 194,879, September 4, 1877.
Peirce, 876,087, January 7, 1908.
Landis, 1,015,567, January 23, 1912.
Sandorff, 2,115,217, April 26, 1938.
Claims 4 and 8' are…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Application of Carl Louis Otto, Lanelle Burnham Otto and Joan BritonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- In the Matter of the Application of James H. CaseyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967