Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Samuel Storchheim v. T. Stevens Daugherty

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 22, 1969No. Patent Appeal 8151Published

1ConcurrenceRich, Judge

I concur in the result reached by the majority but I abstain from the discussion of the “criticality” and “materiality” of the limitation in the count that “substantially all of” the particles of aluminous metal “are coarser than 60 mesh.”

Under the law as propounded by this court ever since its creation — law inherited from its predecessor in jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — all that matters is that the limitation is clearly expressed in the count, that it is there. If it is there, it will not be disregarded and the copier must establish that he has supporting…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lester C. Crome v. Henton MorroghCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  2. George E. Hall, Jr. v. Louis B. TaylorCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
  3. In Re DraegerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
  4. Sweetland v. ColeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  5. In Re FISCHERCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932

8 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