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

  1. Application of RishoiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
  2. In re MulhollandCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  3. In re YoungCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In the Matter of the Application of James H. CaseyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API