Legal Opinion

In re Gruschwitz

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided July 26, 1963No. 6885PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWorlet, Chief Judge

All the claims, 10 through 16, in appellant’s application1 for a patent on a “Spray-Plastering-Device for Applying Mortar to Ceilings and Walls of Buildings” were rejected as unpatentable over the single *1499reference, Fritz et al., German, Patent No. 1,013,861, January 23,1958.

In affirming the examiner’s rejection, the Board of Appeals states:2

This is an appeal from the final rejection of all the claims in the case on the ground that the applicants are barred a patent by reason of the provisions of paragraph (d) of Section 102 of Title 35, United States Code.

The following publications will be…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. In Re BoyceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  2. In re WagenhorstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
  3. Application of Lepage's Incorporated (A Subsidiary of the Papercraft Corporation, and Assignee of Johnson & Johnson)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  4. In re BoyceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  5. In re WesselmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Application of Rudolf WiechertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  2. Application of William G. Baird, Jr., Carl A. Lindstrom, Jr., Arthur L. Besse, Jr., and Donald J. D'EntrEmontCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  3. In re Honeywell, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  4. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  5. Application of Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbell and Paul TimmerbeilCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963

9 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