Legal Opinion
Application of Adolph Wolfensperger
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 18, 1962No. Patent Appeal 6790PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claim 33, the sole claim before us, “as failing to read on applicant’s disclosed structure.” Appellant presented claim 33 in his application Ser. No. 521,495, filed July 12, 1955, entitled “Ball Type Valve,” requesting an interference on this claim with Kaiser Patent No. 2,868,498 issued January 13, 1959, from which patent the claim was copied.
Appellant’s invention relates to a ball type valve “for use in large high pressure fluid pipe lines up to 30 inches and more in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Brand v. ThomasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- Kendall v. SearlesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
- Application of OlsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
- Vickery v. BarnhartCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Application of Lawrence A. HeinleCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- In re BerkmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Refac International Ltd. v. IBMDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1988
- B & J Manufacturing Co. v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.