Legal Opinion
Kinnear v. Marzall
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided January 23, 1951No. Civ. No. 1619-49PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PINE, District Judge.
This is an action under 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, R.S. § 4915, to authorize the reissue of an invalid patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.A. § 64, R.S. § 4916. The claims are drawn to rotary drill construction for use in the drilling of oil wells.
Plaintiff’s original application contained 25 claims. They were rejected on the prior art. Amendments were filed, culminating in the final rejection of all claims. Thereafter still further amendments were filed. These covered only the construction details of a roller cutter forming part of the drill. They were not entered, on the ground that the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Florence-Mayo Nuway Co. v. HardyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
- American Automotoneer Co. v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- Morey v. LockwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Cherry-Burrell Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
- Application of George J. Handel, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1956
- Rendleman v. LaddDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1961