Legal Opinion
Application of Carl Louis Otto, Lanelle Burnham Otto and Joan Briton
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 13, 1963No. Patent Appeal 6901PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the Primary Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 of appellants’ application Ser. No. 512,520 filed June 1, 1955 for HAIR CURLERS FOR PERMANENT WAVING AND MANUFACTURE THEREOF.
Claims 1 and 4, illustrative of the appealed claims, read:
“1. As a new article of manufacture, a core member for hair curlers comprising a body of elastically resilient foam material, the hair being wound directly on said body and said body carrying a hair waving lotion in non-liquid form distributed in the pores of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Application of RishoiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
- In re MulhollandCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
- In re YoungCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
3Cited by1 opinion
- In the Matter of the Application of James H. CaseyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967