Legal Opinion

In re Ludwick

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided April 6, 1925No. 1664PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a Patent Office decision disallowing claims 1 to 18, inclusive, 23, 24, and 25, of appellant’s application.

The device is a force feed lubricator designed for lubricating various bearings of machinery, more particularly a roller mill. The Primary Examiner disallowed all the claims, because, in his view, they were anticipated by the prior art. The Board allowed claims 19 to 22, inclusive, but affirmed, the Examiner as to all the other claims, and this decision in turn was affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. As to claims 1 to 12, inclusive, the Assistant…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re SmitheyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1920
  2. Smithey v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1924

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Victor Cooler Door Co. v. Jamison Cold Storage Door Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API