In re Shapleigh
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, Chief Judge
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, rejecting claims 1-3,5,6,10,11,13,14, and 18-20 as unpatentable over the prior art in appellant’s application for “Furnace and Process for Treatment of Fluid Reactants.” Claims 4,7-9,12, and 15-17 were withdrawn from further consideration under Rule .142 (b) as not readable on the elected species and are thus not here on appeal.
At oral argument, counsel for appellant agreed that claims 10 and 18 were, as well, not readable on the elected species. In view of this fact and notwithstanding the fact that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re KeplerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
- In Re LewisCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- In re LoblCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
3Cited by3 opinions
- Revlon, Inc. v. Carson Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Application of Marvin C. Van Wanderham, Warren W. Worthley and Carl R. ComolliCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Twin Disc, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986