In re Howard
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtLenroot, Judge
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, refusing to allow claims A and B of appellant’s application, filed February 27, 1919, which claims read as follows:
A. Apparatus for feeding molten glass in controllably shaped, suspended mold charges, comprising a container for the glass provided with an impulsion chamber having downwardly converging sides and having a discharge outlet in its bottom, and a discharge controlling implement adapted to reciprocate vertically above said outlet, and having its lower end in said well when said implement is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Waterbury Buckle Co. v. G. E. Prentice Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1923
3Cited by10 opinions
- Application of StanleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
- Application of John W. Hession, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Application of BeckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- In re KeimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Application of Gerald S. Keim and William Donald ThompsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.