Legal Opinion
Application of Calvin M. Hammack
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 2, 1970No. Patent Appeal 8278PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 43, 46, 51, 58, 59, 61, 63, 67-69, 76 and 81 of appellant’s patent application 1 as indefinite and thus failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112. Seven claims stand allowed.
The subject matter of the application on appeal relates to the determination of the position and velocity of moving bodies such as aircraft, space vehicles, ballistic missiles, and submarines. The well-known doppler effect, which broadly stated is the phenomenon whereby relative movement between a source…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van VenrooyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- Application of Lynn B. Wakefield and Frederick C. FosterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
3Cited by12 opinions
- Interval Licensing LLC v. Aol, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Moore U.S.A., Inc.,plaintiff-Appellant v. Standard Register Company,defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Plastic Container Corporation v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. JanoskiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.