Legal Opinion

In Re Burns

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 29, 1936No. Patent Appeal 3609PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HATFIELD, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the primary examiner requiring division, in appellant's application for a patent, of certain claims directed to a product, that is, a package, claims 9, 10, 15, and 16, from other claims directed to a machine, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12, and those directed to a process for making the product, claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14.

Claims 1, machine, 5, process, and 9, product, are illustrative. They read:

“(1) In a wrapping machine, the combination with a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re FerenciCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
  2. In re FerenciCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
  2. In Re PattonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  3. In Re FerenciCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
  4. Application of John P. Swentzel (The Carborundum Co., Assignee)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
  5. In re WaltersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948

3 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