Legal Opinion
Application of Roy A. Grout
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 25, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7765PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and 3 of appellant’s application 1 for “Honeycomb Foundation Supporting Means” under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. The invention in issue is adequately set forth in appealed claim 1 concerning which appellant states:
* * * For purposes of this appeal only, no distinctions between the claims will be argued, and claim 1 may be taken as representative of all three claims.
Claim 1 is as follows:
1. In a comb foundation support for a beehive, a substantially rectangular shaped composition frame including vertical side…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
- In re O'ConnorCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
- In re MarianiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
3Cited by14 opinions
- Systematic Tool & MacHine Company v. Walter Kidde & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Johnson & Johnson v. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1977
- General Motors Corp. v. Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1979
- Theodore C. Gerner v. Moog Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
- Erie Technological Products, Inc. v. Die Craft Metal Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1972
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.