Legal Opinion
Matter of the Application of Walter D. Teague, Jr
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 2, 1958No. Patent Appeal 6306PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, rejecting claims 8, 9, 10 and 15 of appellant’s application No. 130,157, filed November 30, 1949, for “Oil Cooler Emergency By-Pass Valve,” as unpatentable over the prior art. Nine claims stand allowed.
The claims on appeal read as follows (all emphasis being ours) :
“8. A by-pass valve means comprising a casing, a longitudinal bore in said casing, a first inlet and outlet communicating with said bore, a second inlet and outlet communicating with said bore, a plunger slida-bly mounted in said bore and constructed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cryns v. MusherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
- Application of FreyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Neumair v. MalocsayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
- Emerson v. BeachCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
3Cited by6 opinions
- Charles J. Stalego and Wendell W. Drummond v. Pierre Rene Heymes and Ivan PeychesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- In re ClarkCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Application of Phil H. Hidy and William F. PhillipsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Austin Powder Co. v. Atlas Powder Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1983
- Square D Company v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.