Legal Opinion
Application of James H. Saunders and Paul G. Gemeinhardt
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 24, 1971No. Patent Appeal 8500PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8-11, 19-21, 23, and 26 in appellants’ application serial No. 758,890, filed September 4, 1958, for methods for preparing cellular polyurethane foam. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a family of methods for preparing cellular polyurethane foam by what may be generally characterized as the “one shot” technique. Claim 23, which the parties agree is illustrative of the broad claims on appeal, sets forth the process adequately for…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Application of Frantz Lund and Wagn Ole GodtfredsenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- In re RuffCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- In re GardinerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- In re WertheimCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State UniversityCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- In re KellerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Standard Oil Company v. MontedisonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1980
- In re LindnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.