In re Gruschwitz
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
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
- In Re BoyceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- In re WagenhorstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
- Application of Lepage's Incorporated (A Subsidiary of the Papercraft Corporation, and Assignee of Johnson & Johnson)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- In re BoyceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- In re WesselmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Application of Rudolf WiechertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- 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
- In re Honeywell, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- 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.