Legal Opinion

In re Coes

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 12, 1949No. 5555PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, Judge

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner’s rejection of *1068claims 1 to 4, inclusive, of appellant’s application for a patent entitled “Abrasive Articles and Method of Making the Same.” The rejection was based on prior art, the references cited being the following patents:

Martin, Re. 19,318, September 18, 1934.

Kistler, 2,272,873, February 10, 1942.

Kistler, 2,272,874, February 10, 1942.

Kistler, 2,272,875, February 10, 1942.

Coes, 2,309,575, January 26, 1943.

In accordance with the motion filed by appellant at the oral…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Application of JonesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  2. Application of HenzeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  3. Monsanto Company v. Rohm and Haas CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Monsanto Company v. Dawson Chemical CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1970
  5. The General Tire & Rubber Company v. Jefferson Chemical Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API