Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Application of Newton

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 12, 1951No. Patent Appeals 5731Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Connell, Judge

I wholly concur in the decision of Chief Judge GARRETT with respect to the allowance of claim 4 but respectfully dissent from his disallowance of the remainder of the claims. The question of whose claims are patentable in a given, case is always a matter of opinion. Evert so, courts are not exempt from fallacy or error of judgment in deciding that question, and from time to time have been required.' to reverse themselves in whole or in part on a petition for rehearing.1

A fertile source of error in the patent law is the misapplication of a sound legal principle established by a court of…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. Corning v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1854

18 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