Legal Opinion

Application of Franz

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 26, 1951No. 5802PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WORLEY, Judge.

In this appeal, the record discloses that the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office rejected as unpatentable over the prior art claims Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, those being all of the claims in appellants’ application for a patent relating to luminescent targets. On appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the examiner as to claims 1 to 4, inclusive, and claims 7 and 8, ibut allowed claims 5 and 6. From that decision, appellants here appeal.

The reference relied upon is:

Law 1,543,931 June 30, 1925.

Claims 1 and 7 are deemed to be illustrative and read as…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. H. C. White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
  4. Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. In re EarleCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Application of StevensCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
  2. Application of ArbeitCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  3. Application of ArbeitCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  4. In re MixonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API