Legal Opinion

In re Cramblet

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 27, 1932No. 3030PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge

The appellant filed his application in the United States Patent Office for a patent on certain improvements in mercury switches. The examiner rejected claims 1 to 6, inclusive, 8, 11, and 12, on reference to British patent to Hatfield, 17286, of 1911, 200-152, and Kaisser, 1517636, December 2, 1924, 200-152. Claims 15, 16, and 17 were added by supplemental apjieal. The Board of Appeals held that the decision of the examiner should be reversed as to his rejection of said claims on the references Hatfield and Kaisser. The board, however, cited a new reference, namely, Mailey, No. 1638123, of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Hillard v. Fisher Book TypewriterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1908
  3. Stead Lens Co. v. Kryptok Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
  4. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. v. WoodCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1923

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Mimex Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  2. Application of Joseph D. TurlayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
  3. Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Beaunit Corp.District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1974
  4. In re ChmielCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  5. Matter of the Application of Eugene M. Chmiel and Walter C. O'LearyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API