Legal Opinion
In Re Edgar L. Stencel
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 2, 1987No. 87-1110PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
The decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), rejecting claims 1 through 14 of Stencel patent application Serial No. 250,895 entitled “A Driver for a Lobed Collar” for failure to meet the requirements for patentability set out in 35 U.S.C. § 103, is reversed.
OPINION
The claimed invention relates to a driver that is adapted to set a joint with a particular threaded lobed collar. The driver turns the collar until, when the collar is tight against the workpiece, the lobes of the collar are deformed by…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The Perkin-Elmer Corporation, a Corporation of New York v. Computervision Corporation, a Corporation of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Interconnect Planning Corporation v. Thomas E. Feil, Robert O. Carpenter, v Band Systems, Inc., and Turret Equipment Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Kropa v. RobieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- In re KellerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Application of Carl F. Swinehart and Marko SfiligojCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Allen Engineering Corporation v. Bartell Industries, Inc. And Darragh CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc., Robert D. Keenum, and Keenum, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- In Re David C. PaulsenCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.