Legal Opinion
In re Mead
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 30, 1978No. Appeal No. 78-524PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection *252under 35 U.S.C. § 251 of claims 4, 9, and 10 of the application serial No. 572,357 filed April 28, 1975 entitled “Vibratory Pile Feeder.” The application is a continuation of serial No. 393,539 filed August 31, 1973 and is for reissue of appellant’s U.S. Patent No. 3,667,590 issued June 6, 1972.1 Reissue claims 1-3 (which broaden original claims 1-3) stand allowed. We affirm.
Background
1. History at the PTO
The original application, serial No. 273, filed on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Application of George J. Handel, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- In re OritaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- In Re Elmar W. Weiler and Richard L. MansellCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Dethmers Manufacturing Co. v. Automatic Equipment Mfg. Co.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1998
- In Re Godfrey Newbold HounsfieldCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- In Re James R. Amos, Chester K. Greathouse and David S. RiddleCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.