Legal Opinion

Application of Arthur E. Troiel

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 9, 1960No. Patent Appeal 6480PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the final rejection of claims 2, 4, 5 and 10, the only claims remaining in application Serial No. 165,039, filed May 29, 1950, entitled “Hole Cap and Tool Therefor.”

In setting up forms into which concrete is poured for making structures such as walls, dams, etc., ofttimes, either initially or in reuse, the lumber used has holes or other imperfections in its surfaces. To prevent the concrete, as it is poured into the forms, from escaping through holes and to provide a smooth surfaced concrete…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Application of WorrestCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  3. In re AttwoodCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  4. Application of BeltzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  5. In re BennettCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re Jeffrey B. Gorman and Marilyn KatzCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
  2. Ellicott MacHine Corporation v. The United States and American Marine and MacHinery Company, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
  3. Application of Everett F. GustafsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API