Legal Opinion
In re Dardick
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 23, 1974No. Patent Appeal No. 9180PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALMOND, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 of appellant’s application1 entitled “Salvo Ammunition For Multiple Bore Open Chamber Gun.” We reverse.
The Invention
The claims on appeal are directed to ammunition for a “multiple bore open chamber gun.” With reference to the figures set forth below, appellant’s specification contains the following description of the preferred embodiment of the claimed invention:
Reference is made first to FIGS. 6 through 8 illustrating a salvo-type, multiple…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In re RubinfieldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Application of William C. AnthonyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- Hugh S. Knowles v. George C. TibbettsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Voisinet v. CoglianeseCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- In re TanczynCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- F. Brantley Scott and John H. Burton v. Roy P. FinneyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Slip Track Systems, Inc. And Todd A. Brady v. Metal-Lite, Inc., Thomas R. Herren, and Gene N. Carpenter, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Wayne K. Pfaff, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Steinberg v. SeitzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- Wetmore v. QuickCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.