Legal Opinion

Worel v. Ooms

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided July 9, 1947No. Civil Action No. 32544Published

1Opinion of the Court

KEECH, Justice.

I find myself unable to agree with the determination of the examiner and the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office in denying claims 15, 16, and 17 in the application of the plaintiff Glen J. Word for a patent entitled “Piston Expander for Slotted and Unslotted Piston Skirts” (Serial No. 356,608).

At the outset, I should state that this conclusion is based on additional testimony and exhibits introduced at the hearing before the Court and demonstrations by the plaintiff of the operation of actual or scale models of the Word, Moore, Pleaton, and Johnson expanders, as well as the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Abbott v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  3. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  4. Robertson v. CooperCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1931
  5. In re PrescottCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1922

6 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