Legal Opinion
In re Armstrong
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 8, 1936No. 3644PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge
Appellant has appealed here from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming that of the examiner denying patentability in view of the prior art of claims 13, 17 and 19 of his application for patent relating to a mercury switch. A large number of claims were allowed but none as broad as the claims here involved.
Claim 13 illustrates the nature of the subject matter involved and is representative of the three rejected claims. It follows:
13. A mercury switch device having a chambered body member comprising two commercially pure iron parts insulatedly…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Triergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Ohmer Fare Register Co. v. OhmerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- International Mausoleum Co. v. SievertCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Sawyer v. Munson S. S. LineDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1934
3Cited by2 opinions
- American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Electrons, Inc. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938