Legal Opinion
In re Clark
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided September 25, 1975No. Patent Appeal No. 75-505PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of all claims remaining in an application to reissue a patent.1 The examiner rejected the reissue application on three separate grounds and the board affirmed all three. We affirm.
The first ground was, speaking generally and in the words of the board, a rejection “(1) Under 35 U.S.C. 251,” the statute authorizing reissue of defective patents. That statute reads, in pertinent part:
§ 251. Reissue of defective patents Whenever any patent is, through error without any…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Beckman Instruments, Inc., and Leland C. Clark, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Chemtronics, Inc. And J. Ryan Neville, Defendants-Appellees-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- In re WadlingerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Application of Ryohei OdaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. Lex Tex Ltd., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Rohm and Haas Company v. Crystal Chemical Company and Joe C. EllerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.