Legal Opinion · Dissent

Matter of the Application of Walter D. Teague, Jr

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 2, 1958No. Patent Appeal 6306Published

1DissentJohnson, Chief Judge

I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority except with respect to claim 8. That claim, as noted in the majority opinion, is broad enough to cover a system in which the position of the by-pass valve is controlled by the flow through a single orifice, as well as one in which it is controlled by flow through two orifices. Jensen’s claim 11, on the other hand, is limited to a construction in which control is effected in accordance with the differential of pressures across two orifices.

It is apparent that appellant’s claim 8 is much broader than Jensen’s claim 11 and would cover structures…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Cryns v. MusherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
  3. In Re CresswellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
  4. In re HowardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  5. Andrews v. WickendenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952

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