Application of Wilhelm Ahlert and Ernst Kruger
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the rejection of all claims in appellants’ application 1 as un-patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
THE INVENTION
The application discloses a technique for controlling the rate of cooling of a weld between two sections of railroad rail and the apparatus for accomplishing the method “without creating any disturbance in the railroad traffic” and “independently of the prevailing weather conditions.” The controlled heat treatment provided is alleged to result in a tough, crack-free weld having reduced…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Application of Lyle B. BorstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Walter Spormann and Joachim HeinkeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Application of Arthur v. HughesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Kenneth B. CoferCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Application of Knapp-Monarch CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re KronigCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- In Re LeithemCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Intra Corp. v. Hamar Laser Instruments, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1987
- In re PardoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Application of William BoonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.