Legal Opinion
Vernon K. Charvat v. Commissioner of Patents
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided June 28, 1974No. 71-1731PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
Like others1 before him who have presented an issue as to obvious*139ness in patent litigation, Charvat has here contended that there was error in the rejection of his application Serial No. 304002 for a grinding wheel. The Patent Office and the District Court concluded that Charvat’s Ramron wheel would have been obvious to one possessed if ordinary skill in the art in light of a single reference, that of Toc-ci-Guilbert who already possessed U.S. Patent No. 3,252,775 covering a polishing wheel. Protracted exchanges of views among the members of this sitting division only have emphasized that…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
- Scandiamant Aktiebolag v. Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
- Anthony J. Antonious, Cross-Appellee v. Progroup, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1983
- Hanes Corp. v. MillardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.