Legal Opinion
Application of Lyman S. Allen
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided December 12, 1963No. Patent Appeal 7016PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The issue in the present appeal requires a determination of whether the differences between the cited prior art and the invention disclosed in appellant’s application 1 and claimed in rejected claims 1-19, inclusive, are such that the invention is unpatentable in view of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The appealed rejection predicated obviousness of the claimed invention on the combined teachings of the following references:
Di Maio 2,515,949 July 18, 1950
Marshall 2,515,960 July 18, 1950
Rule I 2.577.484 Dec. 4, 1951
Rule II 2.577.485 Dec. 4, 1951
The invention defined by the appealed claims…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- In re RubinfieldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- In re WagenhorstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
3Cited by12 opinions
- Application of Helena Rubinstein, Inc. (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- In re McKellinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Application of Louise H. Brown and Ronald SwidlerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- Application of Sydney M. Spatz and Marvin KoralCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Martha Tomanek, Nee KunitzerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.