Legal Opinion
In Re Ridgway
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided April 29, 1935No. Patent Appeal 3430PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
Appellants have here appealed from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming that of -the examiner refusing to allow appellants claims 8 to 22, inclusive. In this court appellants moved to dismiss the appeal as to claims 14, 15, 19, and 20. Of the remaining claims, 9 and 21 are regarded as illustrative and follow:
“9. A manufactured abrasive material containing more than 99% of crystalline alpha alumina, from 0.2% to 2% of included voids uniformly distributed there-through, and not less than .05% of a non-aluminous impurity of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
- In Re MardenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- In Re TuckerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- In Re MardenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
3Cited by3 opinions
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- In Re MerzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark OfficeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010