Legal Opinion
In Re Laurent
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided January 16, 1951No. Patent Appeals 5727PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’CONNELL, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the Primary Examiners in finally rejecting under the practice of dual prosecution claims 47, 48, and 49 of appellant’s application for a patent on an improvement in a closure joint for effecting the sealing of an opening in a vessel or pipe line containing fluids under high pressure. Seventeen claims, 30 to 46, were allowed.
Claims 47 and 48 were rejected by the examiner of Division 52 as unpatentable over the following prior art: Bride 303,-615 August 19,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- In re CusterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
- In re MilneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- In re RockwellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- George F. Stradar v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
- Endevco Corporation v. Chicago Dynamic Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1967
- In re KrodelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
- Application of LilienfeldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
- Application of William J. Krodel and Norman HackermanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.