Legal Opinion

Application of Charles H. Goodman, Edward K. Rice, Klaus Rosenstern and George W. Lenzie

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 17, 1964No. Patent Appeal 7250PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ALMOND, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of all of the claims in appellants’ patent applieation. 1

The invention relates to the formation of hollow concrete slabs which are used as beams. The beams are formed by pouring concrete into a mold containing a central core element running the length of the mold. The concrete fills the void between the mold walls and the central core element. When the concrete is partially cured, the core element is removed by moving the outer walls of the core element inward, thus making…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Application of Philip A. Shaffer, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  2. H. C. White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
  3. Application of Harvey E. Hortman, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  4. In re DeakinsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Application of Sol D. Gershon, Melvin A. Goldberg and Oscar W. NeiditchCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  2. Converse v. BrennerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API