In re Chaplin
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, Judge
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the Primary Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 10 inclusive of appellant’s application No. 118,169 for a patent on an apparatus for manufacturing pulp articles. While it was stated by both the examiner and the board that the claims were rejected on the ground of double patenting in view of appellant’s patent No. 2,388,828, it is evident, as will be pointed out below, that the actual basis on which the appealed claims were refused was lack of adequate disclosure in the appealed application.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- H. Ward Leonard, Inc. v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- Application of BeachCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- Application of SelmiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- In re BrogdenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Application of William BoonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Friedrich Gruschwitz and Albert FritzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Friedrich Gruschwitz and Albert FritzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- In re GruschwitzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963