Application of Osplack
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office. The board’s decision affirmed the holding of the Primary Examiner rejecting as unpatentable over the prior art claims 1 to 8 inclusive, all the claims in appellant’s application for a “Method of Making Precision Gears.”
The appealed claims relate to a method of producing gears which consists essentially in grinding the gear teeth directly and continuously into a preformed gear blank by means of a gear grinding machine operating on the hobbing principle. A suitable grinding apparatus…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- In re DeLanceyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
- Baldwin-Southwark Corp. v. Tinius Olsen Testing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937
- In re WalchCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1937
3Cited by17 opinions
- Application of BisleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
- Application of Claus L. SporckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of WorrestCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
- Application of Marvin C. Van Wanderham, Warren W. Worthley and Carl R. ComolliCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of ArbeitCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.