Legal Opinion

Application of Philip v. Palmquist and James v. Erwin

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 28, 1963No. Patent Appeal 6950PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Judge.

Appellant has appealed from a decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner’s rejection of all of the claims (claims 1-8) of appellants’ application Serial No. 434,323, filed June 3, 1954, entitled “Protective Reflective Film.” All the appealed claims were rejected on two grounds: (1) as unpatentable over the prior art and (2) on the ground of double patenting,

The references relied upon are:

Groten et al. 2,459,739 Jan. 18, 1949

Keithly 2,703,772 March 8, 1955 (Filed Sept. 12,1952)

Bosch (German) [720,980] Aprl. 16, 1942 (page 2, lines 3-27)

Clauser, “Metal Coated…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
  2. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Krementz v. S. Cottle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  4. Application of Edward M. Rothermel and Russell B. Waddell, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  5. Application of Herbert C. Murray and Durey H. PetersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Application of Frederick C. FosterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  2. Argus Chemical Corporation v. Fibre Glass-Evercoat Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
  3. Frantz Manufacturing Company, and v. Phenix Manufacturing Company, Inc., AndCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1972
  4. Dix-Seal Corporation v. New Haven Trap Rock CompanyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1964
  5. Allen-Bradley Company v. Air Reduction CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1967

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

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

Powered by the Exa API