Legal Opinion

Application of John F. Corr

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 24, 1965No. Patent Appeal 7416PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ALMOND, Judge.

John F. Corr appeals from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 13, 14, 19-24, 26, 29 and 33 in appellant’s application. 1 Upon reconsideration the board held claim 27 to be unpatentable also. The solicitor admits that claim 27 as now worded is drawn to patentable subject matter and may be considered allowed.

The invention relates to a rubbery composition that can be vulcanized. Claims 1, 22 and 29 are illustrative:

1. A moldable and vulcanizable high temperature resistant rubber-like material comprising about…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Chicago Steel Foundry Co. v. Burnside Steel Foundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
  3. Application of Oskar Sus and Werner SchaeferCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
  4. Application of George J. DeanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Application of Kenneth A. Metcalfe and William H. LoweCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
  2. In re MayhewCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
  3. In re ColemanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  4. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co. v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1972
  5. Application of Charles W. GarvinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968

2 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