Legal Opinion

In re Twomey

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 21, 1954No. 6034PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWokley, 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 fractionating…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re StattmannCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  2. In re EwaldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939

3Cited by6 opinions

  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
  2. In re HenleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  3. In re MasonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  4. Matter of the Application of William C. MasonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  5. In re MixonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API