Legal Opinion
Application of Martin N. Ornitz and Ray H. English
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 4, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7727PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 in an application 1 entitled “Methods of Continuously Conveying Aluminum,” filed August 27, 1959. The following reference is relied on:
Nathaniel B. Ornitz 3,037,756 June 5, 1962
(Filed Sept. 22, 1959)
This reference is a continuation-in-part of Serial No. 571,474, filed March 14, 1956. The rejection is based on subject matter first disclosed in the now abandoned application and carried forward in the reference patent.
The statutory basis for the rejection is unclear. However,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. BrennerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Application of Edwin H. Land and Howard G. RogersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Application of Robert J. HarryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- Application of Albert Bowers and James C. OrrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Application of Arthur R. Tomlinson, Harry H. Hall and William F. GeigleCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Application of Willie Fong, Amon H. Brown, William L. Wasley, Robert E. Whitfield and Lowell A. MillerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Arthur C. Borg and Stephen J. ZajacCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- In Re Daniel Bartfeld, Shmaryahu Blumberg, Marian Gorecki, Dan Hadary and Menachem ZeeviCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Technology, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 2006
- Application of Arthur C. Borg and Stephen J. ZajacCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.