Legal Opinion

In re Nichols

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 7, 1948No. 5505PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJackson, Judge

On February 21, 1944, appellant filed his application, serial No. 523,301, for a patent for an “Automatic Hydraulic Synchronizer.” The tribunals of the Patent Office allowed nine article claims and rejected all of the method claims, 22 to 27, inclusive From the decision of the board affirming the examiner in rejecting those claims, this appeal has been taken.

The application relates to a method of, and an apparatus for, automatically synchronizing two or more rotary machines, which are not of themselves capable of operating in synchronism. The term “syn-chronism” as used here means the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Black-Clawson Co. v. Centrifugal Engineering & Patents Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1936
  2. Johns-Pratt Co. v. Sachs Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1907

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCHCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  2. In re AshbaughCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
  3. In Re WashburnCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  4. Application of Samuel E. WinderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  5. Application of Samuel E. WinderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957

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

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

Powered by the Exa API