Legal Opinion

In re McConnell

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 26, 1930No. 2286PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGarrett, Judge

This case presents an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office wherein the board modified a decision of the examiner rejecting all. claims, and allowed claims 1 and 3 of appellant’s application. Eighteen claims were rejected'by the boaixl and the appeal to us involves four of these, viz, Hos. 8, 16, 17, and 19.

*1140The claimed invention relates to the recovery of nicotine from tobacco. Claim 8 involves a process and reads as follows:

8. The process of recovering' nicotine from tobacco material, which comprises driving off free nicotine in vapor form, together with aqueous…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1911
  2. Dececo Co. v. George E. Gilchrist Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1903
  3. In re PrescottCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1922

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re BarnettCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
  2. In Re EinsteinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  3. Application of FranzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API