Legal Opinion
Application of Alfred Aufhauser
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided October 10, 1968No. Patent Appeal 7934PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant’s claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being for an obvious invention. Appellant stabilized a wax-polyethylene blend as a coating for paper or other solid substances. He did this by subjecting a particular blend of these components to a specified dosage of ionizing radiation using high energy electrons, and applying the irradiated blend while melted to the paper or other solid substance.
Determination of this issue requires application of the guidelines which have been set forth by the Supreme Court in a series of controlling decisions. When these guidelines are…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gilbert Shaw and Polymers, Inc. v. E. B. & A. C. Whiting CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- In re PayneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- White & White, Inc. v. American Hospital Supply Corp.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1982
- In Re Joseph W. NewmanCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Alden W. Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.