In re Sponnoble
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, Judge
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals,1 affirming the examiner’s rejection of the sole remaining* claim in appellant’s application2 for “Mixing Yial Construction” as “unpatentable over” either Bujan 3 or Lockhart4 in view of Jensen5 and either Parsons et al.6 or Umbdenstock7 under 35 USC 103. Following the first decision by the Board of Appeals, appellant requested reconsideration, and the board rendered a second decision denying any error in the first and making no changes therein.
In the decision from which this appeal stems, the board made reference to an earlier…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Application of Claus L. SporckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Herbert C. Murray and Durey H. PetersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Application of John O. AntonsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Application of George E. Linnert and Ronald H. EspyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of Manuel F. LeonorCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Michael L. McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.