Legal Opinion

Application of Lee S. Twomey and Clarence J. Schilling

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 8, 1955No. Patent Appeal 6034PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WORLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner of claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 45 of appellants’ application, serial No. 619,110, for a patent on a fractionating column. Seven claims stand allowed.

Claims 1 and 7, which are representative of the appealed claims, are as follows:

1. In a liquid fractionating column: the combination with a distributor dividing a liquid stream into a plurality of lesser streams of predetermined constant volumetric relation, of a succession of…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re StattmannCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  2. In Re CresswellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
  3. In re EwaldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Orthopedic Equipment Company, Inc., and Marriott Corporation, and Cross-Appellees v. The United States, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API