Matter of the Application of Walter D. Teague, Jr
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
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
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Cryns v. MusherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
- In Re CresswellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- In re HowardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Andrews v. WickendenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.