Legal Opinion
Application of Jack H. Hofstetter
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided October 6, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7529PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The issue presented is whether the subject matter of the appealed claims,1 relating to a method and apparatus for producing blow molded plastic containers, is obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejection based on the combined teachings of the prior art.
The subject matter sought to be patented involves the blow molding of plastic containers by initially forming a tubular expansible parison2 which is then received within a multisection mold and expanded by internal air pressure to the mold configuration. The method and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Corcoran v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- Edwin L. Reynolds, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Elie P. AghnidesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
- Magnaflux Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
- Application of Ignatius NurkiewiczCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Application of Richard E. Warner and Virginia Ann WarnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of James R. Tiffin and Earl ErdmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Railex Corp. v. Joseph Guss & Sons, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1966
- In re NaberCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Application of Jack H. HofstetterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.