Legal Opinion
Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCH
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 27, 1968No. Patent Appeal 7910PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals1 affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 31-35 and 40 in appellant’s application serial No. 23,739, filed April 21, 1960, entitled “Pulse Sorting Apparatus and Method.” Claims 16-28, 29, 30, and 36-39 have been allowed.
The invention of the claims on appeal is a method for sorting or counting electrical pulses, effective in counting of such pulses of varying amplitudes even at extremely high repetition rates, i. e., at rates greater than 50,000,000 (50 megacycles) per second. Appellant’s method envisions the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Helvering v. HallockSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ntp, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Union Carbide Corporation v. American Can CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- In Re William J. KingCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., Excel Communications Marketing, Inc., and Excel Telecommunications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Application of Hugo Ghiron and Werner UlrichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.