Legal Opinion
In Re Christmann
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 4, 1942No. Patent Appeal 4604PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Judge.
This appeal presents but one question for decision, and that one relates to double patenting. The Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office rejected all appellants’ claims in their application filed April 18, 1940, chiefly on the ground of double patenting. The claims in said application define a reaction product.
The eight claims on appeal differ in scope only. The Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office was of the opinion that claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 were illustrative, and we also think they correctly illustrate the subject matter of all the claims. They read:
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Leggett v. AverySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Underwood v. GerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- American Road MacHine Co. v. Pennock & Sharp Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- In Re ByckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- The Weatherhead Company and Paul D. Wurzburger v. Drillmaster Supply Company and James E. Rutledge and Kenneth C. HornCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1955
- Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- In re BourdonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- In re WardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
- In re JenningsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.