Legal Opinion

In re Lilienfeld

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 30, 1933No. 3201PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeNeoot, Judge

This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming a decision of the examiner, rejecting, for want of invention, claims 15 to 18, inclusive, and claims 25, 26, 27, and 28 of appellant’s application, no. 486604, filed January 11, 1921.

Claims 15, 17, and 25 are illustrative, and read as follows:

15. Alkali cellulose containing substantially over 60% caustic alkali, and not substantially less than 13% of water.

17. A moist alkali cellulose containing substantially over 33% of caustic alkali, and not substantially below 17% of water, the amount…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re BoyceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  2. In re RogoffCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  3. Lever Bros. Co. v. Sitroux Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940
  4. In Re BallCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
  5. Kwik-Set, Inc. v. Welch Grape Juice Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1936

2 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