Legal Opinion

In re Mlot-Fijalkowski

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 15, 1982No. Appeal No. 81-597PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARKEY, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 in application serial No. 818,444, filed July 25, 1977, entitled “Visible Dye Penetrant System,” as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Sockman et al. (Sockman)1 combined with either Vincent et al. (Vincent)2 or Skelly et al. (Skelly).3 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Invention

Appellant claims an improvement in the art of non-destructive testing of workpieces for surface discontinuities using dye penetrants. The basic prior art…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Application of Rudolf WiechertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  2. In re WoodCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
  3. Republic Industries, Inc. v. Schlage Lock CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
  4. Application of Robert v. AntleCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
  5. In re LeBaronCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Union Carbide Corporation v. American Can CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  2. Shelcore, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durham Industries, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  3. Revlon, Inc. v. Carson Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
  4. Union Carbide Corp. v. American Can Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API