Legal Opinion
In Re Fischel
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 18, 1943No. Patent Appeal 4740PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
The instant appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner of claims 11 to 28 inclusive of appellants’ application for a patent relating to an “automatic control for aircraft and the like,” presents only a question of law. Ten of appellants’ claims were allowed.
Such facts as are presented in connection with the question of law involved are not in dispute. In view of this fact and the concessions made by the parties, it is not deemed necessary to set out typical claims or to discuss the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re HargravesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Williams Calk Co. v. KemmererCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1906
- Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania · 1905
- In re DunbarCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1922
- In Re MannCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re WardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Application of John W. Hession, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- EJ Brooks Co. v. Stoffel Seals CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- Application of Richard A. Ward and Robert C. SwitzerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Frank L. Pierce and Amp, Incorporated v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.